Systematic Subjectivity: How Subtle Biases Infect the Scholarship Review Process

In light of renewed debate regarding publication rigor and ethics, this commentary raises questions about the subjectivity of the peer review process. We argue that the same biases organizational scientists consider as topics of our research—such as confirmation bias, negative bias, anchoring and ad...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of management Vol. 44; no. 3; pp. 843 - 853
Main Authors King, Eden B., Avery, Derek R., Hebl, Mikki R., Cortina, Jose M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.03.2018
Sage Publications Ltd
Subjects
Anchoring
Bias
Confirmatory bias
Ethics
Multiculturalism & pluralism
Peer review
Subjectivity
philosophy of science
diversity
management history
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In light of renewed debate regarding publication rigor and ethics, this commentary raises questions about the subjectivity of the peer review process. We argue that the same biases organizational scientists consider as topics of our research—such as confirmation bias, negative bias, anchoring and adjustment, overconfidence bias, and social dynamics—may infect the scholarship process. In addition to these general phenomena, we examine subtle biases that may be unique to or exacerbated within diversity management scholarship. We describe the theoretical basis of such biases and offer preliminary evidence of their nuanced manifestations before outlining suggestions for their reduction.
ISSN:0149-2063
1557-1211
DOI:10.1177/0149206317743553