A wide variety of methodological choices and situations can affect the quality of peer nomination measurements but have not received adequate study. This article begins by focusing on systematic nominator missingness as an example of one such situation. We reanalyzed findings from a recent study by Bukowski, Dirks, Commisso, Velàsquez, and Lopez in the year 2019 and compared the results to recent findings of Babcock, Marks, van den Berg, and Cillessen published in the year 2018 to show that systematic nominator missingness can, indeed, have an impact on nomination measures. From there, we discuss the importance of considering sources of error and the ways that sources of error are analyzed. Ultimately, we argue that systematic nominator missingness is one of several potential sources of error that have largely been ignored in the literature, and that analyzing and reporting these sources of error would strengthen the foundations of peer nomination research.

各种各样的方法选择和情况会影响同行提名衡量的质量，但尚未得到足够的研究。本文首先关注系统提名人缺失作为此类情况的一个示例。我们重新分析了 Bukowski、Dirks、Commisso、Velàsquez 和 Lopez 在 2019 年的最新研究结果，并将结果与​​ Babcock、Marks、van den Berg 和 Cillessen 在 2018 年发表的最新研究结果进行了比较，以表明系统提名者失踪确实会对提名措施产生影响。从那里，我们讨论了考虑错误来源的重要性以及分析错误来源的方法。最终，我们认为系统提名人缺失是文献中在很大程度上被忽略的几个潜在错误来源之一，