ArticlePloS one2025
Are quality assessments in science affected by anchoring effects? - Empirical results from a survey of authors assessing previously cited papers.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies have investigated anchoring effects. Anchoring occurs when initial values are used by humans as starting points in assessments. We investigated the prevalence of anchoring effects in the quality assessments of scientific papers. This study, which is preregistered, is a follow-up study that is intended to answer open questions from a previous study with the same topic. One open question concerns causal conclusions: it is necessary that randomly selected respondents assess the same paper under different conditions. In a survey, we asked corresponding authors to assess the quality of articles they have cited in previous papers. The respondents were randomly assigned to several experimental groups receiving numerical anchors such as citation counts or numerical access codes to the questionnaire. Although our results reveal scarcely effects of citation counts presented to the respondents as possible anchors, there is a small, but statistically significant effect of the random number (the numerical access code) presented to the respondents. Similar to other studies that have investigated the existence of anchoring effects in assessments in various contexts, our study could demonstrate the existence of an anchoring effect in research evaluation. Researchers seem to be influenced by numbers without any relationship to the quality of the evaluated paper in their assessment of papers.
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.