Hojat Mohammadreza, Gonnella Joseph S, Caelleigh Addeane S
Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-5083, USA.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(1):75-96. doi: 10.1023/a:1022670432373.
High publication demands and the low acceptance rate of peer review journals place the journal editors and their reviewers in a powerful position. Journal reviewers have a vital role not only in influencing the journal editor's publication decisions, but also in the very nature and direction of scientific research. Because of their influence in peer review outcomes, journal reviewers are aptly described as the "gatekeepers of science." In this article we describe several pitfalls that can impede reviewers' impartial judgement. These include such issues as confirmatory bias, the negative results bias (the file drawer problem), the Matthew effect, the Doctor Fox effect, and gender, race, theoretical orientation, and "political correctness." We argue that procedures currently used by many professional journals, such as blind or masked review, may not completely alleviate the effects of these pitfalls. Instead, we suggest that increasing reviewers' awareness of the pitfalls, accountability, and vigilance can improve fairness in the peer review process. The ultimate responsibilities belong to the journal editors who are confronted with the difficult task of satisfying journal readers, contributors, reviewers, and owners. We recommend that the journal editors conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of their journals' peer review process and outcomes, with participation of reviewers, contributors, readers and owners.
同行评审期刊的高发表要求和低录用率使期刊编辑及其评审人员处于强势地位。期刊评审人员不仅在影响期刊编辑的发表决策方面，而且在科学研究的本质和方向上都发挥着至关重要的作用。由于他们在同行评审结果中的影响力，期刊评审人员被恰当地描述为“科学的守门人”。在本文中，我们描述了一些可能妨碍评审人员公正判断的陷阱。这些问题包括证实性偏差、负面结果偏差（文件抽屉问题）、马太效应、狐狸博士效应，以及性别、种族、理论取向和“政治正确性”等。我们认为，许多专业期刊目前采用的程序，如盲审或屏蔽评审，可能无法完全减轻这些陷阱的影响。相反，我们建议提高评审人员对这些陷阱的认识、问责制和警惕性，可以提高同行评审过程的公正性。最终责任在于期刊编辑，他们面临着满足期刊读者、投稿人、评审人员和所有者的艰巨任务。我们建议期刊编辑在评审人员、投稿人、读者和所有者的参与下，定期对其期刊的同行评审过程和结果进行内部和外部评估。
