Systematic Subjectivity: How Subtle Biases Infect the Scholarship Review Process
这篇评论质疑同行评审过程中的主观性，指出组织科学家研究中的确认偏见、负面偏见等认知偏见可能影响学术评审，并特别探讨了多样性管理研究中特有的微妙偏见及其理论依据和初步证据。
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.