They Rejected My Paper: Why?

This article critically examines biases in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic scholarship's integrity. Despite its pivotal role, the peer review system is susceptible to various biases, including gender, institutional, confirmation, publication, and reviewer biases. The...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Main Authors: Dah, John; Hussin, Norhayati; Shahibi, Mohd Sazili; Helda, Linda Isaac; Ametefe, Divine Senanu; Aliu, Abdulmalik Adozuka; Ametefe, George Dzorgbenya
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www-webofscience-com.uitm.idm.oclc.org/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001338960200002
author Dah
John; Hussin
Norhayati; Shahibi
Mohd Sazili; Helda
Linda Isaac; Ametefe
Divine Senanu; Aliu
Abdulmalik Adozuka; Ametefe
George Dzorgbenya
spellingShingle Dah
John; Hussin
Norhayati; Shahibi
Mohd Sazili; Helda
Linda Isaac; Ametefe
Divine Senanu; Aliu
Abdulmalik Adozuka; Ametefe
George Dzorgbenya
They Rejected My Paper: Why?
Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Information Science & Library Science
author_facet Dah
John; Hussin
Norhayati; Shahibi
Mohd Sazili; Helda
Linda Isaac; Ametefe
Divine Senanu; Aliu
Abdulmalik Adozuka; Ametefe
George Dzorgbenya
author_sort Dah
spelling Dah, John; Hussin, Norhayati; Shahibi, Mohd Sazili; Helda, Linda Isaac; Ametefe, Divine Senanu; Aliu, Abdulmalik Adozuka; Ametefe, George Dzorgbenya
They Rejected My Paper: Why?
JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
English
Article
This article critically examines biases in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic scholarship's integrity. Despite its pivotal role, the peer review system is susceptible to various biases, including gender, institutional, confirmation, publication, and reviewer biases. These biases can undermine the objectivity and fairness of the academic publishing process, skewing the representation of research and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Through a comprehensive literature review, the study explores these biases' implications on the credibility of individual studies and the broader scientific discourse. The article proposes several solutions to address these issues, including adopting double-blind reviews, diversifying reviewer pools, enhancing transparency in editorial decisions, and promoting ethical standards in peer review. While recognizing the difficulty of completely eliminating biases, the paper emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to minimize their impact, striving for a more equitable, transparent, and rigorous scholarly ecosystem.
UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
1198-9742
1710-1166
2024
55
4
10.3138/jsp-2024-0023
Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Information Science & Library Science

WOS:001338960200002
https://www-webofscience-com.uitm.idm.oclc.org/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001338960200002
title They Rejected My Paper: Why?
title_short They Rejected My Paper: Why?
title_full They Rejected My Paper: Why?
title_fullStr They Rejected My Paper: Why?
title_full_unstemmed They Rejected My Paper: Why?
title_sort They Rejected My Paper: Why?
container_title JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
language English
format Article
description This article critically examines biases in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic scholarship's integrity. Despite its pivotal role, the peer review system is susceptible to various biases, including gender, institutional, confirmation, publication, and reviewer biases. These biases can undermine the objectivity and fairness of the academic publishing process, skewing the representation of research and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Through a comprehensive literature review, the study explores these biases' implications on the credibility of individual studies and the broader scientific discourse. The article proposes several solutions to address these issues, including adopting double-blind reviews, diversifying reviewer pools, enhancing transparency in editorial decisions, and promoting ethical standards in peer review. While recognizing the difficulty of completely eliminating biases, the paper emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to minimize their impact, striving for a more equitable, transparent, and rigorous scholarly ecosystem.
publisher UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
issn 1198-9742
1710-1166
publishDate 2024
container_volume 55
container_issue 4
doi_str_mv 10.3138/jsp-2024-0023
topic Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Information Science & Library Science
topic_facet Arts & Humanities - Other Topics; Information Science & Library Science
accesstype
id WOS:001338960200002
url https://www-webofscience-com.uitm.idm.oclc.org/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001338960200002
record_format wos
collection Web of Science (WoS)
_version_ 1818940499594051584