Systematic Subjectivity: How Subtle Biases Infect the Scholarship Review Process

Abstract

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.