Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1919-1923

  Wing, Deborah A ^a   Benner, Rebecca S ^b   Petersen, Rita ^c   Newcomb, Robert ^c   Scott, James R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONALISM; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SEX DIFFERENCE; TURNAROUND TIME; WORK EXPERIENCE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PREJUDICE; PUBLICATION BIAS; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 77958006596     PISSN: 15409996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1904     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Number of residents, by specialty and gender. ACGME Data Resource Book 2007-2008:76-78.
2. Women in U.S. academic medicine: Statistics and medical school benchmarking, academic year 2003-2004. Women in medicine statistics. Available at www.aamc.org/members/ wim/resources/htm Accessed June 23, 2009.
3. Jagsi R, Tarbell NJ, Henault LE, Chang Y, Hylek EM. The representation of women on the editorial boards of major medical journals: A 35-year perspective. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:544-548.
4. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Committee of Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
5. Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, et al. The "gender gap'' in authorship of academic medical literature-A 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med 2006;355:281-287.
6. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 1994;272:139-142.
7. Caelleigh AS, Hojat M, Steinecke A, Gonnella JS. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript. Teach Learn Med 2003;15:163-167.
8. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 2002.
9. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:443-450.
10. Kennedy BL, Lin Y, Dickstein LJ. Women on the editorial boards of major journals. Acad Med 2001;76:849-851.
11. Dickersin K, Fredman L, Flegal KM, Scott JD, Crawley B. Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? JAMA 1998;280:260-264.
12. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers'' of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2003;8:75-96.
13. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990;263:1392-1395.
14. 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.
15. Lloyd ME. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J Appl Behav Anal 1990;23:539-543.
16. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229-231.
17. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waecherle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:318-322.
18. Wenger NK. Women in leadership positions in the medical academic enterprise. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:449-450.