Perceptions of fairness and bias in the scholarly publishing ecosystem: Insights from a new report

Author: Farah Aldabbagh & Sowmya Swaminathan

How do researchers perceive fairness and bias across the scholarly publishing landscape? And how do these perceptions impact their publishing behaviour? 

Our recent report analyses responses from over 8,000 researchers globally to better understand their views across the scholarly publishing landscape as a whole. In this blog, we discuss the report’s key findings, and explore some of the strategies we use to address perceived bias and encourage fairness in the publishing process at Springer

Nature.

Science and research are often seen as domains governed by impartial standards, where methods, execution, and evaluation are grounded in established research standards. As a key stage in the research lifecycle, scholarly publishing is likewise expected to assess research primarily on its quality.  

Yet researchers’ experiences suggest a more complex reality. Bias is widely perceived to be present globally across scholarly publishing. It remains underdiscussed but widely felt, and shapes researchers’ trust, behaviour, and decisions about where and how to publish. 

Our survey asked researchers about their perceptions of fairness and bias in scholarly publishing, so that we can better understand and address them. We received responses from researchers worldwide representing various regions, disciplines, career stages, and publishing experiences across the scholarly publishing landscape. 

The findings from the survey were recently published in the report titled ‘Perceptions of fairness and bias in the scholarly publishing ecosystem: a global survey' They highlight both structural challenges and practical expectations researchers have of publishers, editors, and reviewers. 

Understanding perceptions of bias in scholarly publishing  

Bias is widely perceived to exist across scholarly publishing, according to the report. 91% of surveyed researchers believe there is some degree of bias in academic publishing. And 84% of respondents say they have experienced bias in some way during the publishing process. 

Country-related bias is the most prevalent type of bias researchers believe to exist in publishing (62%), followed by institutional affiliation bias (56%) and professional network bias (55%). Common experiences of bias include rejection followed by similar papers being published (42%), lack of appreciation for regional significance of research (29%), and reviewer comments focusing on language skills rather than on the research itself (25%). 

Figure 2 from the report: Types of perceived bias

Figure 4 from the report: Indicators of individual experiences of bias

How bias influences researchers’ publishing decisions  

The report finds that 72% of researchers consider the possibility of bias when deciding where to submit their work for publication. 45% say the possibility of bias significantly influences their decisions, and 30% say they’ve decided to not submit to a journal again after having experienced perceived bias.  

This means that researchers’ perceptions of bias influence where they choose to publish. They evaluate various indicators to assess a journal’s potential bias before submitting their manuscript. Beyond their own bias experience with a specific journal and that of their colleagues, many authors will also consider the types of articles published, the diversity of authors and editorial boards, and the the acceptance rates for authors from their region.  

Researchers also report actively using strategies to reduce potential bias against their manuscript. These range from collaboration with senior researchers, researchers from prestigious institutions or countries likely to be accepted, or utilising writing or language services.  

Addressing bias: What researchers expect publishers to do 

The survey shows strong consensus that publishers have both the responsibility and agency to address bias in the publication process. 91% of researchers expect clear policies and systems to address bias, and 62% expect procedures to investigate instances of bias. 

Researchers’ perceptions of the stages in the publication process when bias occurs explains their expectations from publishers to address bias. Respondents identify the initial editorial assessment and decision about whether to send a manuscript out for peer review (71%) and the peer review process itself (64%) as stages where bias primarily occurs. 

Editors indeed have a key role in the publication process, and most respondents want more training for editors, to support them in recognising, managing, and mitigating bias. Over half of respondents want greater visibility into editorial decision processes, as well as more prioritisation of scientific content over language. 

A little over half of researchers feel that reviewers should be provided with guidelines on how to minimise bias in peer review. Respondents consider transparency and anonymisation as ways to potentially reduce bias due to affiliation, gender, or region. And of course, targeted training on delivering constructive, bias-free feedback is considered essential. 

Addressing bias: Springer Nature’s efforts to minimise bias  

To tackle the problem of bias and support fairness in the publication process, publishers across academic publishing need to understand how researchers perceive bias and address their concerns. Indeed, 91% of survey respondents expect publishers to have clear policies and systems to address bias.  

Addressing bias requires more than intent; our efforts concentrate on practical mechanisms that shape decision-making. Because publishing decisions are made by people, training has a critical role in addressing bias. It helps individuals recognise unconscious assumptions, reflect on their decision-making, and avoid practices that may unintentionally reinforce bias. This is essential given what our survey shows us about the impact of perceived bias on researchers’ trust and publishing choices.  

In addition to training, practical mechanisms influence decisions at scale. They can help reduce bias by shaping how decisions are made using clear criteria, transparency, and structured workflows that reduce the reliance on individual judgement.  

Our efforts to reduce bias and encourage fairness in the publishing process at Springer Nature include:  

• Training We’ve been offering implicit bias training for book and journal editors since 2024. The training examines how implicit bias can surface across the publication journey, including content acquisition, peer reviewer selection, editorial appointments, and portfolio management, and offers practical suggestions for countering bias. Additional trainings include Nature Masterclasses on peer review, research integrity training for editors and authors, and more.  
• Increase transparency To support increased transparency, which may help to counter perceptions of bias, we expanded our use of transparent peer review to provide greater insight into the decision-making process. Transparent peer review is now available across all Nature family journals and the BMC Series journals. 
• Diversifying editorial teams We are working to increase the regional diversity of our external academic editors to better reflect the global diversity of the research landscape. 
• Language support We support authors with language-focused services. 

Towards a more robust research ecosystem 

Bias is challenging to prove empirically, but researchers’ perceptions of it have consequences, and they impact their publishing choices.  

Fairness, transparency, and inclusion are not abstract principles for us. We work to achieve and strengthen them throughout the publishing process at Springer Nature. The survey and report on researchers’ perceptions of fairness and bias help us in our efforts to contribute to a more robust and inclusive global research ecosystem for all.  

Explore the full report to learn more about how researchers like you perceive fairness in scholarly publishing, and how Springer Nature is acting on those insights.  

Related content: 

Report: Perceptions of fairness and bias in the scholarly publishing ecosystem: a global survey 

Blog: How we work to promote inclusive practices in book publishing 

Report: Inclusive book publishing at Springer Nature 

Blog: The benefits of inclusive publishing and why we need more inclusive journals 

Blog: How do you determine the value of a journal? Journal value beyond rankings 

White paper: Demonstrating journal value beyond rankings 

Blog: The value of null results: How Discover champions inclusive science 

White paper: The state of null results: Insights from 11,000 researchers on negative or inconclusive results 

Resources & Tools: Global Inclusion in Research Publishing 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest!