ArticlePeerJ2019
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 186 citations in OpenAlex.
- Publishing ethics in medical education: guidance for authors and reviewers in a changing world.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2020Pooled it
- Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Trial
- Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Trial
- How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- The paradox of peer review: protecting science or policing thought?Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Everybody hurts: The Reviewer-Imposed Pain (RIP) matrix.Medical education · 2026Article
- Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Highlighting Counterstereotypical Scientists in Undergraduate Life Science Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Historical and ongoing inequities shape research visibility in Latin American aquatic mammal paleontology.Communications biology · 2025Article
- From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies.PloS one · 2025Article
- Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2025Article
- Collective dynamics behind success.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Be excellent to each other.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Rethinking the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Course.Biomedical engineering education · 2024Article
- Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications.Current research in physiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer 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.
methodsIn 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.
resultsWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.