RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications
JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law
FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
SP 55
OP 64
DO 10.29158/JAAPL.240090-24
VO 53
IS 1
A1 Felthous, Alan R.
A1 Wettstein, Robert M.
A1 Nassif, Jose
YR 2025
UL http://jaapl.org/content/53/1/55.abstract
AB Bias can vitiate the quality and credibility of a mental health professional’s forensic evaluations as well as scientific and scholarly contributions to the forensic process in forensic psychiatry publications. Our attention here is on this latter influence of bias, although the genres of bias identified here can as well occur in forensic practice and writings. Attention is given to multiple forms of bias in peer review: ad hominem, ideological, confirmatory, hindsight, the halo effect, gender, publication, conflict of (financial) interest, political, religious, nationality or country of origin, esthetic or linguistic, racial or ethnicity, and herding. No doubt much bias in peer review goes undetected and no absolute purification process exists. Nonetheless, as with almost any problem, the first step toward a remedy is recognition.