Mike Jonas
A report has just been published by Springer Nature (the company that publishes Nature scientific journal among others), on a global survey of perceived bias in scholarly publishing:
Perceptions of fairness and bias in the scholarly publishing ecosystem: a global survey
In 2024, they invited submissions from researchers and received 11,866 responses, of which they analysed 8,485. They explain the use of a survey of perception rather than of empirical data: “Bias can be challenging to demonstrate empirically, so this report focuses on perceptions and personal experiences.“.
My submission would have been one of the 11,866, but I don’t know if it was in the 8,485.
My interest in bias, and my submission on bias, was in the area of field bias (their name for it) which is “preference for certain schools of thought or methods“. There have been numerous articles in WUWT about “pal review” and journal bias in climate science, so I am sure that everyone here will understand what I am talking about. In my submission, I referred to a paper that I submitted to a Springer journal and which was rejected after 11 months of review, with the editor personally telling me they did not want yet another paper critical of the climate models. This was from the editor of a journal which was not exactly renowned for publishing papers that were critical of the climate models. Naturally, I interpreted that as bias.
The Springer Nature survey defines bias as:
- Bias is a prejudice against or a preference for people based on a group they belong to, often resulting in discrimination or favouritism of those people when acted upon.
- Bias can be present against or for numerous attributes, such as certain countries, languages, perceived institutional prestige, seniority, gender, race, ethnicity, disciplines, political beliefs, etc.
- Bias can be conscious or unconscious.
Note that there is nothing in their definition of bias which refers to field bias.
It was very interesting to me, therefore, when the survey results, although predominantly based around regional bias, included the following:
That looks to me like 55% say there is pal review or similar, and 36% say there is field bias. Given Springer Nature‘s definition of bias, which indicated that they weren’t actually looking for field bias, that 36% is, to my mind, quite an impressive number. Bear in mind that the survey covered all fields of research, not just climate. Incidentally, the two categories above are not exclusive, so don’t add the two %’s together.
It is good that the perception of bias is now at least a bit out in the open, but what comes next? Springer Nature says:
“… Addressing bias is not only an ethical imperative, but it is also critical to ensuring a more complete and representative global knowledge base, which Springer Nature commits to building. These data underscore the need for publishers to proactively work on widening participation in the research publishing process, reducing bias, strengthening researcher trust, and ensuring that all research is assessed on its merits.”
I will believe it when I see it.
