<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="zhang-etal-2026-implicit">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Implicit Bias in Peer Review: Through the Lens of Language Abstraction</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Xulang</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Zhang</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Rui</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Mao</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Erik</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Cambria</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2026-05</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Stelios</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Piperidis</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Núria</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Bel</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Henk</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">van den Heuvel</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Nancy</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Ide</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Krek</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <name type="personal">
            <namePart type="given">Antonio</namePart>
            <namePart type="family">Toral</namePart>
            <role>
                <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
            </role>
        </name>
        <originInfo>
            <publisher>ELRA Language Resource Association</publisher>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Palma de Mallorca, Spain</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>Peer review is essential for the scholarly publishing process. However, its credibility is increasingly brought to questions. Bias is one of the aspects worthy of investigation. Existing research mostly focuses on predefined, explicit bias types, which are insufficient for analyzing the myriad of implicit biases in peer review. Thus, we proposed to study the bias in peer review through the lens of language abstraction, informed by the cognitive theories which suggest that frequency of abstraction in descriptions plays a latent yet important role in bias transmission. Hence, we trained a model to assess the abstraction level of text, and applied it to a review dataset to examine the connection between abstraction and the implicit biases in peer reviews. Results show that there are indeed observable quantitative differences in the abstraction use of reviews recommending to reject versus recommending to accept. Furthermore, reviews for the rejected papers tend to be more abstract than ones for the accepted papers, indicating possible transmission of implicit bias. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to study generalized Linguistic Intergroup Bias in the academic text domain.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">zhang-etal-2026-implicit</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.63317/4uxwwzgswmqc</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.752/</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2026-05</date>
        <extent unit="page">
            <start>9569</start>
            <end>9580</end>
        </extent>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Implicit Bias in Peer Review: Through the Lens of Language Abstraction
%A Zhang, Xulang
%A Mao, Rui
%A Cambria, Erik
%Y Piperidis, Stelios
%Y Bel, Núria
%Y van den Heuvel, Henk
%Y Ide, Nancy
%Y Krek, Simon
%Y Toral, Antonio
%S Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
%D 2026
%8 May
%I ELRA Language Resource Association
%C Palma de Mallorca, Spain
%F zhang-etal-2026-implicit
%X Peer review is essential for the scholarly publishing process. However, its credibility is increasingly brought to questions. Bias is one of the aspects worthy of investigation. Existing research mostly focuses on predefined, explicit bias types, which are insufficient for analyzing the myriad of implicit biases in peer review. Thus, we proposed to study the bias in peer review through the lens of language abstraction, informed by the cognitive theories which suggest that frequency of abstraction in descriptions plays a latent yet important role in bias transmission. Hence, we trained a model to assess the abstraction level of text, and applied it to a review dataset to examine the connection between abstraction and the implicit biases in peer reviews. Results show that there are indeed observable quantitative differences in the abstraction use of reviews recommending to reject versus recommending to accept. Furthermore, reviews for the rejected papers tend to be more abstract than ones for the accepted papers, indicating possible transmission of implicit bias. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to study generalized Linguistic Intergroup Bias in the academic text domain.
%R 10.63317/4uxwwzgswmqc
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.752/
%U https://doi.org/10.63317/4uxwwzgswmqc
%P 9569-9580

Markdown (Informal)

[Implicit Bias in Peer Review: Through the Lens of Language Abstraction](https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.752/) (Zhang et al., LREC 2026)

• Implicit Bias in Peer Review: Through the Lens of Language Abstraction (Zhang et al., LREC 2026)

ACL

• Xulang Zhang, Rui Mao, and Erik Cambria. 2026. Implicit Bias in Peer Review: Through the Lens of Language Abstraction. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 9569–9580, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. ELRA Language Resource Association.