Rooting out bias

Rooting out bias

Tackling unconscious bias is a major challenge for journals and the rest of the scientific community.

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Bridget M Kuehn
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	eLife Sciences Publications Ltd 2017-09-01
Series:	eLife
Subjects:	peer review bias scientific publishing funding agencies
Online Access:	https://elifesciences.org/articles/32014

Similar Items

Decisions, decisions
by: Peter Rodgers
Published: (2017-09-01)

To fund or not to fund?
by: Sarah Shailes
Published: (2017-09-01)

Is positive publication bias really a bias, or an intentionally created discrimination toward negative results?
by: Hunny Sharma, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?
by: Faye Holst, et al.
Published: (2022-10-01)

Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis
by: Ada K. Hagan, et al.
Published: (2020-12-01)

Confronting the bias towards animal experimentation (animal methods bias)
by: Catharine E. Krebs, et al.
Published: (2024-04-01)

Biased under-reporting of research reflects biased under-submission more than biased editorial rejection [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/ViIqTX]
by: Iain Chalmers, et al.
Published: (2013-01-01)

What makes an eLife paper in epidemiology and global health?
by: Mark Jit, et al.
Published: (2015-10-01)

Reviewing Peer Review
by: Barry London
Published: (2021-08-01)

The eLife approach to peer review
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-04-01)

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award
by: Anne E Hultgren, et al.
Published: (2024-03-01)

Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing
by: Catharine E. Krebs, et al.
Published: (2023-10-01)

A year in the life of eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2013-10-01)

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Sarah Holst, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01)

Scholarly information architecture, 1989 - 2015
by: P Ginsparg
Published: (2006-01-01)

Misunderstanding publication bias: editors are not blameless after all [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/YvAwwD]
by: Stephen Senn
Published: (2012-12-01)

Consultative review is worth the wait
by: Stuart RF King
Published: (2017-09-01)

A new twist on peer review
by: Mark Patterson, et al.
Published: (2018-06-01)

Stepping down
by: Eve Marder
Published: (2020-01-01)

Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5gj]
by: Richard Walker, et al.
Published: (2015-06-01)

The changing forms and expectations of peer review
by: S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach, et al.
Published: (2018-09-01)

Priority of discovery in the life sciences
by: Ronald D Vale, et al.
Published: (2016-06-01)

The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing
by: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Published: (2013-12-01)

Building a sustainable future for eLife
by: Randy Schekman, et al.
Published: (2016-09-01)

The pleasure of publishing
by: Vivek Malhotra, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

A Comment of the comments
by: Pance Naumov
Published: (2024-04-01)

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact
by: Björk Bo-Christer, et al.
Published: (2012-07-01)

Making the most of peer review
by: Nikolai Slavov
Published: (2015-11-01)

Beyond scoops to best practices
by: Eve Marder
Published: (2017-07-01)

Usos, limitaciones y prospectiva de la evaluación por pares
by: Faustino Moreno Ceja, et al.
Published: (2012-08-01)

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
by: Charles W. Fox, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01)

Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?
by: Drvenica Ivana, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-04-01)

TO THE EDITOR
by: Timo Partonen, et al.
Published: (2023-10-01)

Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Ira Mills, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

Make researchers revisit past publications to improve reproducibility [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Clare Fiala, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

A citation-based, author- and age-normalized, logarithmic index for evaluation of individual researchers independently of publication counts [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
by: Aleksey V. Belikov, et al.
Published: (2015-09-01)

Journal ratings as predictors of articles quality in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: an analysis based on the Italian Research Evaluation Exercise [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5d3]
by: Andrea Bonaccorsi, et al.
Published: (2015-07-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)