Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):265-283 (2019)

Jen Garcia
Valencia Community College
This paper shows that, for a large range of parameters, the journal editor prefers to delegate the choice to review the manuscript to the biased referee. If the peer review process is informative and the review reports are costly for the reviewers, even biased referees with extreme scientific preferences may choose to become informed about the manuscript’s quality. On the contrary, if the review process is potentially informative but the reviewer reports are not costly for the referees, the biased reviewer has no incentive to become informed about the manuscript. Furthermore, if the reports are costly for referees but the peer review processes are not potentially informative, the biased reviewers will never become informed. In this paper, we also present a web resource that helps editors to experiment with the review process as a device for information transmission.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9998-8
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,467
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Market for Scientific Lemons, and the Marketization of Science.Jesús Zamora Bonilla - 2019 - Theoria : An International Journal for Theory, History and Fundations of Science 34 (1):133-145.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
An Adversary Model of Manuscript Review: Further Comments.Robert Bornstein - 1991 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (4):479-486.


Added to PP index

Total views
24 ( #438,312 of 2,421,199 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #192,306 of 2,421,199 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes