English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provideinitial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update theirreviews based on the authors' response. There is mixed evidence regardingwhether this process is useful, including frequent anecdotal complaints thatreviewers insufficiently update their scores. In this study, we aim toinvestigate whether reviewers anchor to their original scores when updatingtheir reviews, which serves as a potential explanation for the lack of updatesin reviewer scores.  We design a novel randomized controlled trial to test if reviewers exhibitanchoring. In the experimental condition, participants initially see a flawedversion of a paper that is later corrected, while in the control condition,participants only see the correct version. We take various measures to ensurethat in the absence of anchoring, reviewers in the experimental group shouldrevise their scores to be identically distributed to the scores from thecontrol group. Furthermore, we construct the reviewed paper to maximize thedifference between the flawed and corrected versions, and employ deception tohide the true experiment purpose.  Our randomized controlled trial consists of 108 researchers as participants.First, we find that our intervention was successful at creating a difference inperceived paper quality between the flawed and corrected versions: Using apermutation test with the Mann-Whitney U statistic, we find that theexperimental group's initial scores are lower than the control group's scoresin both the Evaluation category (Vargha-Delaney A=0.64, p=0.0096) and Overallscore (A=0.59, p=0.058). Next, we test for anchoring by comparing theexperimental group's revised scores with the control group's scores. We find nosignificant evidence of anchoring in either the Overall (A=0.50, p=0.61) orEvaluation category (A=0.49, p=0.61).

Testing for Reviewer Anchoring in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial