Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2008, Pages

  Engqvist, Leif ^a   Frommen, Joachim G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

effect size; gender bias; GLMM; refereeing process; sex difference

Indexed keywords

GENDER ISSUE; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; SIZE EFFECT;

EID: 49149127581     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Anon. Working double-blind. Nature 451 (2008) 605-606
2. Budden A.E., Tregenza T., Aarssen L.W., Koricheva J., Leimu R., and Lortie C.J. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (2008) 4-6
3. Garvalov B.K. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?. Nature 452 (2008) 28
4. Lane D. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields. Nature 452 (2008) 28
5. Link A.M. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (1998) 246-247
6. Naqvi K.R. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway. Nature 452 (2008) 28
7. O'Hara B. Double-blind review: let diversity reign. Nature 452 (2008) 28
8. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17 (2002) 349-350
9. Wennerås C., and Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387 (1997) 341-343