META-RESEARCH Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts

Research suggests that scientists based at prestigious institutions receive more credit for their work than scientists based at less prestigious institutions, as do scientists working in certain countries. We examined the extent to which country- and institution-related status signals drive such differences in scientific recognition. In a preregistered survey experiment, we asked 4,147 scientists from six disciplines (astronomy, cardiology, materials science, political science, psychology and public health) to rate abstracts that varied on two factors: (i) author country (high status vs lower status in science); (ii) author institution (high status vs lower status university). We found only weak evidence of country- or institution-related status bias, and mixed regression models with discipline as random-effect parameter indicated that any plausible bias not detected by our study must be small in size.

Automated summary

The research found that scientists from prestigious institutions or certain countries are more likely to receive scientific recognition. However, there was only weak evidence of country- or institution-related status bias in the experiment, suggesting that any plausible bias not detected in the study must be small in size.