{"id":10008,"date":"2021-09-23T08:54:28","date_gmt":"2021-09-23T08:54:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=10008"},"modified":"2021-09-23T09:07:30","modified_gmt":"2021-09-23T09:07:30","slug":"is-abstract-peer-review-affected-by-institutional-and-geographical-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2021\/09\/23\/is-abstract-peer-review-affected-by-institutional-and-geographical-bias\/","title":{"rendered":"Is abstract peer review affected by institutional and geographical bias?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"As the quantity of academic publications and subsequent data overload continue to grow, deciding what to read has become increasingly difficult. The status of an academic institution or country are recognised \u2018cues\u2019 used by some academics to determine the most important, or most reputable, research. This feeds into the \u00a0halo effect<\/a>, which suggests that publications from \u2018higher-status\u2019 locations are viewed more favourably, potentially influencing the peer-review processes. A recent study<\/a>, published in eLife<\/em><\/a>, put this theory to the test by examining the impact of author\u2019s geographical location and academic affiliation on the scholarly evaluation of scientific abstracts.<\/p>\n

The study by Professor Mathias Wullum Nielsen<\/a> and colleagues recruited over 4,000 research-active academics from 6 disciplines: astronomy, cardiology, materials science, political science, psychology, and public health. Participants were asked to review adapted or newly created abstracts with fictive authors and affiliations, appropriate to their respective fields. The discipline-specific abstracts, which differed only on author country and institution, were assessed on the following criteria:<\/p>\n