Plasticity and Bias in Peer Assessment: Critical Perspectives from Bibliometrics
2011 (English)In: PROCEEDINGS OF ISSI 2011: THE 13TH CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SCIENTOMETRICS AND INFORMETRICS, 2011, 742-746 p.Conference paper (Refereed)
This research paper in progress discusses some of the common criticisms of peer review: Costs and Robustness, Nepotism (conflict of interest), Sexism and Cognitive Bias. Attention is given to the fact that much of the research reported fails on a crucial point: The use of bibliometrics as a correlate for the grading and ranking done by granting or evaluation committees (ad hoc or standing committees). The full paper will extend the analysis using data from a selection of finished projects and assessments. Results indicate that there are systemic problems regarding peer review: Firstly, the positive bias in university assessments based on ad hoc committees. Problems circulate around the absence of robust benchmarks and the ad hoc selection of experts. Secondly, the role of cognitive distance points to the power mechanisms in selection processes for finding relevant reviewers. Thirdly, the low levels of peer's performance (in bibliometric respect) indicate that selection of peers is no longer to search for the best possible peer, but instead, the pragmatic peer.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. 742-746 p.
, Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSN 2175-1935
Engineering and Technology
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-121385ISI: 000305337100077ISBN: 978-90-817527-0-1OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-121385DiVA: diva2:618652
13th Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics (ISSI), JUL 04-07, 2011, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA
QC 201304292013-04-292013-04-292013-05-24Bibliographically approved