Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts

Area of Science:

• Scientific Publishing
• Peer Review Process

Background:

• Journals allow authors to suggest peer reviewers.
• Handling editors may select author-suggested reviewers (ASRs) or non-author-suggested reviewers (non-ASRs).

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate if ASR selection influences manuscript decisions.
• To analyze geographical influences on reviewer selection and outcomes.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective analysis of original research articles from the Journal of Neurochemistry (2013-2016).
• Comparison of outcomes for papers reviewed by ASRs versus non-ASRs.
• Analysis included manuscript acceptance rates, reviewer ratings, editor scores, review time, and geographical data.

Main Results:

• Papers reviewed by at least one ASR had a higher acceptance rate (52%) than those reviewed only by non-ASRs (32%).
• ASRs were 2.4 times more likely to recommend acceptance than non-ASRs.
• Editors' final decisions showed a less pronounced difference, indicating a balancing role.
• Non-ASRs showed geographical bias, favoring North American and European manuscripts.

Conclusions:

• A significant bias towards lower rejection rates exists when author-suggested reviewers assess papers.
• The findings led the Journal of Neurochemistry to discontinue the reviewer suggestion option.
• Geographical factors influenced reviewer recommendations but not necessarily reviewer assessments.