Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study

E Ernst1, K L Resch

  • 1Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter, United Kingdom.

The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine
|August 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The "Hoddle Muddle": using faith healers and other complementary therapists in sports medicine.

British journal of sports medicine·1998
Same author

Does post-exercise massage treatment reduce delayed onset muscle soreness? A systematic review.

British journal of sports medicine·1998
Same author

The rise and fall of complementary medicine.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·1998
Same author

The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer: a systematic review.

Cancer·1998
Same author

Does moderate alcohol consumption affect fertility? Follow up study among couples planning first pregnancy.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·1998
Same author

[Phytotherapy. 1. Use in diseases of the locomotor system].

Fortschritte der Medizin·1998

Scientific peer review shows poor consistency and is influenced by reviewer bias. Experts reviewing a fictitious paper on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) exhibited significant bias based on their own research, impacting judgments and highlighting the need for peer review improvements.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Scientific publishing standards

Background:

  • Peer review is the standard for scientific publication acceptance.
  • Limited data exist on the accuracy and reproducibility of the peer review process.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate interrater reliability in manuscript review.
  • To determine if reviewer predisposition, based on prior publications, influences review outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • 33 authors publishing on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) were recruited.
  • Participants reviewed a fabricated TENS manuscript without knowing they were evaluated.
  • Reviewer ratings were collected via a structured, multiple-choice questionnaire.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • The study found poor interrater reliability among reviewers.
  • Reviewer judgments were significantly influenced by their own published research and preconceptions.
  • Referees whose work aligned with the manuscript's findings judged it less critically.

    • Conclusions:

    • Reviewer bias demonstrably impacts scientific judgment.
    • The current peer review system requires enhancements for improved fairness and consistency.
    • Addressing reviewer bias is crucial for the integrity of scientific publication.