Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 163-167

  Caelleigh, Addeane S ^a   Hojat, Mohammadreza ^b   Steinecke, Ann ^c   Gonnella, Joseph S ^b  

^a Science Publishing Services   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMPIRICISM; FEMALE; FORECASTING; GENDER; HUMAN; INCOME; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL STUDENT; NORMAL HUMAN; OCCUPATION; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZATION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIALIZATION; STANDARDIZATION; STUDY;

EID: 0041419648     PISSN: 10401334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1503_03     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Armstrong JS. We need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviews. Chronicle of Higher Education 1996;43(9):B3.
2. Crane D. The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 1967;32:195-201.
3. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? Journal of the American Medical Association 1998;280:243-5.
4. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994;272:143-6.
5. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized control trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998;280:240-2.
6. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological jourrials: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavior and Brain Science 1982;5:187-95.
7. McIntosh EG, Ross S. Peer review in psychology: Institutional ranking as a factor. Psychological Reports 1987;60:1049-50.
8. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effects on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998;280:237-40.
9. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open review on quality of review and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal 1999;7175:23-7.
10. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 1994;272:139-42.
11. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2003;8:75-96.
12. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Erdmann JB, et al. Gender comparisons of income expectations in the USA at the beginning of medical school during the past 28 years. Social Sciences & Medicine 2000;50:1665-72.
13. Dawda D, Martin J. Psychologists on psychology: The inquiry beliefs of psychologists by subdiscipline, gender, and age. Review of General Psychology 2001;5:163-79.
14. Fontanarosa PB, Glass RM, DeAngelis CD. Thanking authors, peer reviewers, and readers: Constancy in a time of change. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;283:2016-7.
15. Campion EW, Curfman GD, Dazen JM. Tracking the peer-review process. New England Journal of Medicine 2000;1485-6.
16. King DW, McDonald DD, Rodereer MK. Scientific journals in the United States: Their production, use, and economics. Strosburg, PA: Hutchinson & Ross, 1981.
17. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994;272:149-51.
18. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlans Tij dschrift voor geneeskunde. Lancet 1996;348:1480-3.
19. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994;272:119-21.
20. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 1994;121:11-21.