The Social Structure of Consensus in Scientific Review

TL;DR

This study reveals that personal connections influence scientific review judgments, with reviewers favoring authors close in the co-authorship network, indicating biases persist even in validity-focused peer review.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence of bias in peer review based on personal connections and explores mechanisms behind favoritism in scientific assessments.

Findings

Reviewers favored authors close in co-authorship network by ~0.11 points per proximity step.

Bias persists despite review focus on scientific validity, not personal connections.

Favoritism varies with network distance, highlighting the role of diverse reviewer selection.

Abstract

Personal connections between creators and evaluators of scientific works are ubiquitous, and the possibility of bias ever-present. Although connections have been shown to bias prospective judgments of (uncertain) future performance, it is unknown whether such biases occur in the much more concrete task of assessing the scientific validity of already completed work, and if so, why. This study presents evidence that personal connections between authors and reviewers of neuroscience manuscripts are associated with biased judgments and explores the mechanisms driving the effect. Using reviews from 7,981 neuroscience manuscripts submitted to the journal PLOS ONE, which instructs reviewers to evaluate manuscripts only on scientific validity, we find that reviewers favored authors close in the co-authorship network by ~0.11 points on a 1.0 - 4.0 scale for each step of proximity. PLOS ONE's validity-focused review and the substantial amount of favoritism shown by distant vs. very distant reviewers, both of whom should have little to gain from nepotism, point to the central role of substantive disagreements between scientists in different "schools of thought." The results suggest that removing bias from peer review cannot be accomplished simply by recusing the closely-connected reviewers, and highlight the value of recruiting reviewers embedded in diverse professional networks.