Is there gender bias in the peer review process at Journal of Neurophysiology?

Journal of Neurophysiology

Volumn 101, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 2195-2196

  Lane, John A ^a   Linden, David J ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SEX DIFFERENCE;

EID: 65649118611     PISSN: 00223077     EISSN: 15221598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00196.2009     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Budden AE, Lortie CJ, Tregenza T, Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R. Double-blind review: accept with minor revisions (Response to Webb et al.). Trends Ecol Evol 23: 353-354, 2008b.
2. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 23: 4-6, 2008a.
3. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
4. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? J Am Med Assoc 272: 139-142, 1994.
5. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karisson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. J Am Med Assoc 272: 149-151, 1994. (Pubitemid 24206051)
6. Webb TJ, O'Hara B, Freckleton R. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol 23: 351-353, 2008.