The privilege and burden of peer review

Abstract

Objectives: Peer review is a core value and method of quality control in psychological research, academic psychology, and other disciplines, but little is known about the peer-reviewing behavior of ethnic minority reviewers in particular. The purpose of this study was to examine the self-identified ethnicity of those invited to peer review articles for 76 journals that utilized the American Psychological Association's Journals Back Office (JBO) system from 2003 to 2012. It was hypothesized that a modest increase in the ratio of requests for reviews from self-identified ethnic minority reviewers would be observed over time, that self-identified ethnic minority reviewers would be less likely to refuse a review request than those who do not self-identify as an ethnic minority, and finally that increases in reviewer burden would be evident in significant increases in declines to requests by all reviewers. Method: Reviewer requests and responses were examined among the 76 journals that used the JBO system over a 10-year period. Results: Using hierarchical linear models, the percentage of review invitations extended to ethnic minorities was found to significantly increase over time: Initially, anestimated 8.34% of review requests were made to ethnic minority reviewers, and that percentage increased an average of 0.41% per year. Conclusions: Ethnic minority reviewers were significantly less likely to refuse a review request than ethnic majority reviewers. Results are discussed in terms of perceived pressure to demonstrate scholastic impact and the disproportionate service burden often borne by ethnic minority psychologists.