Background Descriptive studies examining publication rates and citation counts demonstrate a geographic skew toward high-income countries (HIC), and research from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally underrepresented. This has been suggested to be due in part to reviewers’ and editors’ preference toward HIC sources; however, in the absence of controlled studies, it is impossible to assert whether there is bias or whether variations in the quality or relevance of the articles being reviewed explains the geographic divide. This study synthesizes the evidence from randomized and controlled studies that explore geographic bias in the peer review process. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify research studies that explicitly explore the role of geographic bias in the assessment of the quality of research articles. Only randomized and controlled studies were included in the review. Five databases were searched to locate relevant articles. A narrative synthesis of included articles was performed to identify common findings. Results The systematic literature search yielded 3501 titles from which 12 full texts were reviewed, and a further eight were identified through searching reference lists of the full texts. Of these articles, only three were randomized and controlled studies that examined variants of geographic bias. One study found that abstracts attributed to HIC sources elicited a higher review score regarding relevance of the research and likelihood to recommend the research to a colleague, than did abstracts attributed to LIC sources. Another study found that the predicted odds of acceptance for a submission to a computer science conference were statistically significantly higher for submissions from a “Top University.” Two of the studies showed the presence of geographic bias between articles from “high” or “low” prestige institutions. Conclusions Two of the three included studies identified that geographic bias in some form was impacting on peer review; however, further robust, experimental evidence is needed to adequately inform practice surrounding this topic. Reviewers and researchers should nonetheless be aware of whether author and institutional characteristics are interfering in their judgement of research.

中文翻译：

---

地理偏见在知识传播中的作用：系统回顾和叙述综合

背景 检查发表率和引用次数的描述性研究表明，地理上偏向于高收入国家 (HIC)，而来自低收入或中等收入国家 (LMIC) 的研究通常代表性不足。这被认为部分是由于审稿人和编辑对 HIC 来源的偏好所致；然而，在缺乏对照研究的情况下，无法断言是否存在偏见，或者所审查文章的质量或相关性的差异是否解释了地理差异。本研究综合了随机对照研究的证据，这些研究探讨了同行评审过程中的地理偏见。方法进行系统评价，以确定明确探讨地理偏见在研究文章质量评估中的作用的研究。该评价仅包括随机和对照研究。搜索了五个数据库以查找相关文章。对纳入的文章进行叙述性综合，以确定共同的发现。结果 系统文献检索共检索到 3501 篇文献，其中全文审阅 12 篇，通过检索全文参考文献列表确定另外 8 篇。在这些文章中，只有三篇是随机对照研究，研究了地理偏差的变体。一项研究发现，与 LIC 来源的摘要相比，来自 HIC 来源的摘要在研究相关性和向同事推荐该研究的可能性方面获得了更高的评分。另一项研究发现，从统计学上来说，计算机科学会议提交的论文被接受的几率明显高于“顶尖大学”提交的论文。其中两项研究表明，来自“高”或“低”威望机构的文章之间存在地域偏见。结论 三项纳入研究中的两项发现，某种形式的地理偏见正在影响同行评审；然而，需要进一步强有力的实验证据来充分指导围绕该主题的实践。尽管如此，审稿人和研究人员应该意识到作者和机构特征是否会干扰他们对研究的判断。