MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403303066 · doi:10.1037/amp0001224

Editor bias and transparency in psychology’s open science era.

2024· article· en· W4403303066 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Open sciencePsychologyApplied psychologyPolitical scienceLawStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this open science era, psychology demands researchers be transparent in their research practices. In turn, researchers might ask if journal editors are being equally transparent in their editorial practices. Editor bias is when editors fail to be fair and impartial in their handling of articles. Editor bias can arise because of identity-who authors are-or because of content-what authors write. Proposed solutions to editor bias include masking author identity and increasing editor diversity. What is needed is greater transparency. By being more transparent, editors would be in a better position to encourage others to embrace open science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.635
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.635
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.029
Scholarly communication0.0240.028
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican PsychologistSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207