Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 272, Issue 2, 1994, Pages 139-142

  Gilbert, Julie R ^a   Williams, Elaine S ^b   Lundberg, George D ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PERSONALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0028291595     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020065018     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321-1322.
2. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI Press; 1986.
3. Rennie D. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress. JAMA. 1990;263:1317.
4. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990; 263:1385-1389.
5. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990;263:1392-1395.
6. Kronik JW. Editor's column. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 1990; 105:192-196.
7. Gannon L, Luchetta T, Rhodes K, Pardie L, Segrist D. Sex bias in psychological research: progress or complacency? Am Psychol. 1992;47: 389-396.
8. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-1376.
9. Sharp DW. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? the perspective of an editor. JAMA. 1990;263:1390-1391.
10. Sojka RE, Mayland HF, Gbur EE. American Society of Agronomy member experiences and perceptions of the peer reviewing-editing process. In: Kral DM, ed. Research Ethics, Manuscript Review and Journal Quality. Madison, Wis: ACS Miscellaneous Publication; 1992:35-53.
11. Knoppers A. Productivity and collaborative patterns of physical educators. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989;60:159-165.
12. Hicks C. Of sex and status: a study of the effects of gender and occupation on nurses' evaluations of nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1992;17:1343-1349.
13. Lloyd ME. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990;23:539-543.
14. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology. 1991;178:637-642.