A noise audit of the peer review of a scientific article: a WPOM journal case study

Abstract

This study aims to be one of the first to analyse the noise level in the peer review process of scientific articles. Noise is defined as the undesired variability in the judgements made by professionals on the same topic or subject. We refer to evaluative judgements in which experts are expected to agree. This is what happens when we try to judge the quality of a scientific work. To measure noise, the only information needed is to have several judgements made by different people on the same case to analyse their dispersion (what Kahneman et al. call a noise audit). This was the procedure followed in this research. We asked a set of reviewers from the journal WPOM (Working Papers on Operations Management) to review the same manuscript which had been previously accepted for publication in this journal, although the reviewers were unaware of that fact. The results indicated that if two reviewers were used, the probability of this manuscript not being published would be close to 8%, while the probability of it having an uncertain future would be 40% (one favorable opinion and one unfavorable opinion or both suggesting substantial changes). In the case of employing only one reviewer, in 25% of the cases, the audited work would have encountered significant challenges for publication. The great advantage of measuring noise is, once measured, it is usually possible to reduce it. This article concludes by outlining some of the measures which can be put in place by scientific journals to improve their peer review processes.