@Tony, I also couldn't help but think of the random walk in understanding the role of reviews.

Expand full comment

There may be many criteria on which peer reviewers do agree, but which don't show up in this study because authors already know those criteria and have satisfied them before the paper is even submitted.

For example, most reviewers agree that a P-value of greater than 0.05 is not acceptable, so papers that don't meet that standard don't get written in the first place. This actually indicates that peer review works very well; it exerts its influence through the foreknowledge of review, not the review itself.

Maybe it's sort of like predicting stock prices - if most investors agree that a stock is underpriced, the price goes up immediately, erasing their agreement. All that remains is the residual disagreement, making it appear that they can't agree on anything. Maybe this study points to a kind of EMH for scientific publication.

Expand full comment

As the end of the article points out, there isn't a clear reason to prefer high or low inter-rater agreement. High agreement might be evidence of high-quality reviewing, or of a lack of diversity in selected reviewers.

Most journals I work with provide two reviewers, each of which provide a recommendation (reject, minor revision, major revision, accept). Since about 85% of the first-round submissions are rejected, any meaningful measure of inter-rater agreement would need to consider a asymmetric loss function. Only papers with two positive reviews are likely to make it to the next round.

Another observation that seems missing from the analysis. Authors self-select the journals they submit to. If they do so efficiently, targeting the highest quality journal they have a sufficiently good chance of getting published in, wouldn't you expect low agreement between reviewers. After all, most of the papers they receive would be as plausibly accepted as rejected.

Expand full comment

No surprise at all. Remember that guy who twenty years ago hit the nail in the head on this subject: "Peer review is just another popularity contest, inducing familiar political games; savvy players criticize outsiders, praise insiders, follow the fashions insiders indicate, and avoid subjects between or outside the familiar subjects. It can take surprisingly long for outright lying by insiders to be exposed. There are too few incentives to correct for cognitive and social biases, such as wishful thinking, overconfidence, anchoring, and preferring people with a background similar to your own." :-))

Well said.

Expand full comment