Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
Background Peer reviewed research is paramount to the advancement of science. Ideally, the peer review process is an unbiased, fair assessment of the scientific merit and credibility of a study; however, well-documented biases arise in all methods of peer review. Systemic biases have been shown to d...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/8247.pdf |
| _version_ | 1827607415040770048 |
|---|---|
| author | Nyssa J. Silbiger Amber D. Stubler |
| author_facet | Nyssa J. Silbiger Amber D. Stubler |
| author_sort | Nyssa J. Silbiger |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Peer reviewed research is paramount to the advancement of science. Ideally, the peer review process is an unbiased, fair assessment of the scientific merit and credibility of a study; however, well-documented biases arise in all methods of peer review. Systemic biases have been shown to directly impact the outcomes of peer review, yet little is known about the downstream impacts of unprofessional reviewer comments that are shared with authors. Methods In an anonymous survey of international participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, we investigated the pervasiveness and author perceptions of long-term implications of receiving of unprofessional comments. Specifically, we assessed authors’ perceptions of scientific aptitude, productivity, and career trajectory after receiving an unprofessional peer review. Results We show that survey respondents across four intersecting categories of gender and race/ethnicity received unprofessional peer review comments equally. However, traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM fields were most likely to perceive negative impacts on scientific aptitude, productivity, and career advancement after receiving an unprofessional peer review. Discussion Studies show that a negative perception of aptitude leads to lowered self-confidence, short-term disruptions in success and productivity and delays in career advancement. Therefore, our results indicate that unprofessional reviews likely have and will continue to perpetuate the gap in STEM fields for traditionally underrepresented groups in the sciences. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T06:54:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b98a410aa6884777971f8a589931df69 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T06:54:27Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-b98a410aa6884777971f8a589931df692023-12-03T10:14:02ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592019-12-017e824710.7717/peerj.8247Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEMNyssa J. Silbiger0Amber D. Stubler1Biology Department, California State University, Northridge, CA, USABiology Department, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA, USABackground Peer reviewed research is paramount to the advancement of science. Ideally, the peer review process is an unbiased, fair assessment of the scientific merit and credibility of a study; however, well-documented biases arise in all methods of peer review. Systemic biases have been shown to directly impact the outcomes of peer review, yet little is known about the downstream impacts of unprofessional reviewer comments that are shared with authors. Methods In an anonymous survey of international participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, we investigated the pervasiveness and author perceptions of long-term implications of receiving of unprofessional comments. Specifically, we assessed authors’ perceptions of scientific aptitude, productivity, and career trajectory after receiving an unprofessional peer review. Results We show that survey respondents across four intersecting categories of gender and race/ethnicity received unprofessional peer review comments equally. However, traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM fields were most likely to perceive negative impacts on scientific aptitude, productivity, and career advancement after receiving an unprofessional peer review. Discussion Studies show that a negative perception of aptitude leads to lowered self-confidence, short-term disruptions in success and productivity and delays in career advancement. Therefore, our results indicate that unprofessional reviews likely have and will continue to perpetuate the gap in STEM fields for traditionally underrepresented groups in the sciences.https://peerj.com/articles/8247.pdfPeer reviewUnderrepresented minoritiesSTEMIntersectionality |
| spellingShingle | Nyssa J. Silbiger Amber D. Stubler Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM PeerJ Peer review Underrepresented minorities STEM Intersectionality |
| title | Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM |
| title_full | Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM |
| title_fullStr | Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM |
| title_full_unstemmed | Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM |
| title_short | Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM |
| title_sort | unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in stem |
| topic | Peer review Underrepresented minorities STEM Intersectionality |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/8247.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nyssajsilbiger unprofessionalpeerreviewsdisproportionatelyharmunderrepresentedgroupsinstem AT amberdstubler unprofessionalpeerreviewsdisproportionatelyharmunderrepresentedgroupsinstem |