The term bias describes the systematic skewing or distortion of assessment processes that regularly disadvantages certain groups. This is a problem because it means that as an institution academia have failed in one of it's most fundamental tasks: to correctly assess scientific merit and quality.

Assessment processes are subject to various forms of skewing. Bias may occur based on cognitive constraints or based on interests.

Cognitive constraints may stem from personal/non-professional bias or scholarly/professional bias. Personal cognitive constraint occurs when unconscious stereotypes based on gender, origin or other social characteristics affect one’s judgement. It is this type of judgement that we refer to in everyday language as ‘bias’ or ‘implicit’ or ‘unconscious’ bias. Professional cognitive constraint implies that an opinion on scientific quality is influenced by the researcher’s specialisation or field of study. Researchers from other disciplines and with different methodological orientations may have divergent opinions on what constitutes scientific quality. This bias is difficult to circumvent and may even be an asset in making a judgement, given that knowledge and insight into a field of research is required to assess the quality of research in that field. This type of bias largely becomes problematic when a scientifically unbalanced group is given the task of assessing research from various fields. In such a case, a well-rounded judgement requires an assessment panel composed of researchers from various disciplinary domains.

Bias based on interest may be rooted in personal or scientific interests. When judgement is coloured by scientific interests, a desire to promote one’s own field of research may lead to favouritism. When judgement is coloured by personal interests, a desire to reward personal relationships may lead to favouritism.

These different forms of bias in assessment processes are illustrated in the table below.

Categories of bias in research evaluation

Cognitive constraint

Interests

Scholarly/

professional bias

The constraints of a professional platform Preconceptions of good and valuable research. Selective perceptions = looking through ‘the glasses’ of your ‘school’/ scholarly viewpoint/profession.

Research interests

Taking effects on economic and political standing of the field/research area into consideration.58 Nepotism = helping ‘heirs’ or other colleagues because of ‘school’/scholarly viewpoint or research topic

Non-professional bias

General or personal cognitive constraints
Sub-optimal thoroughness and information seeking. Selective perceptions = disregarding information due to routines/ limited capacity for handling information.

Personal interests
Taking effects on personal situation or situation of friends, partners or competitors into consideration. Nepotism = helping colleagues because of friendship.

Source: Langfeldt 2002

More about personal cognitive bias

Watch the Royal Society’s three-minute video on unconscious bias.

References

Bondestam, Fredrik & Grip, Louise (2015) Fördelning eller förfördelning. Forskningsfinansiering, jämställdhet och genus – en forskningsöversikt. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. Nationella sekretariatet för genusforskning. Tillgänglig på: https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/2020-06/fordelning-eller-forfordelning.pdf

Gemzöe, Lena (2010). Kollegial bedömning av vetenskaplig kvalitet. En forskningsöversikt. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Tillgänglig på: https://www.vr.se/analys-och-uppdrag/vi-analyserar-och-utvarderar/alla-publikationer/publikationer/2010-04-05-kollegial-bedomning-av-vetenskaplig-kvalitet.html (Links to an external site.)

Gvozdanović Jadranka & Maes Katrien Implicit bias in academia: A challenge to the meritocratic principle and to women's careers - And what to do about it. ADVICE PAPER no.23 - January 2018. LERU: Leauge of European Univeristies. Tillgänglig på: https://www.leru.org/files/implicit-bias-in-academia-full-paper.pdf (Links to an external site.)

Holst, Sarah & Hägg, Sara (2017). Positive bias for European men in application for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet.F1000 Research Vol 6 s. 2145.

Lamont, Michèle (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Langfeldt, Liv (2001). The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 820-841.

Langfeldt, Liv (2002). Decision-making in expert panels evaluating research constraints, processes and bias Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning

Wennerås C & Wold A (1997): Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387 s. 341 - 343; doi:10.1038/387341a0