Response to Whittaker: challenges in testing for gender bias

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 480-481

  Budden, Amber E ^a   Aarssen, Lonnie ^b   Koricheva, Julia ^c   Leimu, Roosa ^d   Lortie, Christopher J ^e   Tregenza, Tom ^f  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^e YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49049104361     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.004     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Budden A.E., et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 4-6
2. Whittaker R.J. Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 478-479
3. Webb T.J., et al. Does double-blind review benefit female authors?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (2008) 351-353
4. Hammerschmidt, K. et al. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Front. Ecol. Environ. (in press)
5. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 (2002) 349-350
6. Budden, A.E. et al. Who's afraid of double-blind review? Front. Ecol. Environ. (in press)
7. Smit C. Peer review: time for a change?. Bioscience 56 (2006) 712-713