Reviewers change their mind after hearing from ‘peers’

Harvard experiment finds nearly half of academics amended their assessment of a research application after seeing randomly generated ‘expert scores’

Published on

May 8, 2019

Last updated

May 8, 2019

Twitter: @rachaelpells

Whisper in ear

Read more about

Read more about:

Research funding

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Peek at peers’ points changes reviewers’ minds

Register to continue

Why register?

Registration is free and only takes a moment
Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
Sign up for our newsletter

Subscribe

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
Digital editions
Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Please or to read this article.

Related articles

Peer review science illustration

Peer review should be a two-stage, science-first process

Bias would be reduced if grant applicants’ capabilities were considered only after assessment of their anonymised proposals, says David Sanders

By David A. Sanders

4 April

Football player falling over

Peer review: how to be a good referee

Peer review is lauded in principle as the guarantor of quality in academic publishing and grant distribution. But its practice is often loathed by those on the receiving end. Here, seven academics offer their tips on good refereeing, and reflect on how it may change in the years to come

By Rachel Ankeny

6 December

Best buddies

Male editors ‘more likely to accept papers from other men’

Study finds further evidence to suggest peer review process riddled with gender and racial bias

By Rachael Pells

28 September

Two footballers

Objections to double-blind peer review ‘unfounded’

Up to 90 per cent of reviewers unable to guess authors of papers in experiment

By Rachael Pells

18 June

Related universities

Sponsored