Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology?

New Zealand Journal of Ecology

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 335-339

  Buckley, Hannah L ^a   Sciligo, Amber R ^b   Adair, Karen L ^a   Case, Bradley S ^a   Monks, Joanne M ^c  

^a LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Authorship; Discrimination; Editorial bias; Sexism; Women in science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904470125     PISSN: 01106465     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson D.R. 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. New York, Springer. 184 p.
2. Bates D., Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 classes. R package version 1.0-5. http://cran.R-project.org/ package=lme4.
3. Beede D., Julian T, Langdon D, McKittrick G, Khan B, Doms M 2011. Women in STEM: a gender gap to innovation. ESA Issue Brief #04-11. Washington, DC, US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 11 p.
4. Budden A.E., Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ, Tregenza T. 2008a. Response to Whittaker: challenges in testing for gender bias. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 480-481.
5. Budden A.E., Tregenza T, Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie C.J. 2008b. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 4-6.
6. Burrelli J. 2008. Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Info Brief NSF 08-308. Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation. 10 p. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
7. Cameron E.Z., Gray ME, White AM 2013. Is publication rate an equal opportunity metric? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28: 7-8.
8. Ceci S.J., Williams WM 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 108: 3157-3162.
9. Chesler N.C., Chesler MA 2002. Gender-informed mentoring strategies for women engineering scholars: on establishing a caring community. Journal of Engineering Education 91: 49-55.
10. Conley D., Stadmark J 2012. Gender matters: A call to commission more women writers. Nature 488: 590.
11. Curran T.J., Cieraad E, Monks JM 2013. Fostering the next generation of reviewers in New Zealand ecology. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 37: 161.
12. Dahl M.S., Dezscö CL, Ross DG 2012. Fatherhood and managerial style: How a male CEO's children affect the wages of his employees. Administrative Science Quarterly 57: 669-693.
13. Denmark F.L., Klara MD 2010. Women mentors and their effect on educational and professional career development. In: Rayburn C.A., Denmark FL, Reuder ME, Austria AM eds A handbook for women mentors: Transcending barriers of stereotype, race, and ethnicity. Santa Barbara, CA, Praeger ABC-CLIO. Pp. 3-20.
14. De Vries DR, Marschall EA, Stein RA 2009. Exploring the peer review process: What is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries 34: 270-279.
15. Dezsö C.L., Ross DG 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal 33: 1072-1089.
16. Donaldson M.R., Hasler CT, Hanson KC, Clark TD, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ 2010. Injecting youth into peer-review to ensure its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 3: 1-7.
17. Dunstone M., Williamson B 2012. Gender equity: current issues, best practice and new ideas. Early and Mid Career Researcher Forum, a forum of the Australian Academy of Science. http://www.science.org.au/policy/documents/ GenderEquityEMCRForum.pdf
18. Gilbert J.R., Williams ES, Lundberg GD 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 139-142.
19. Grod O.N., Budden AE, Tregenza T, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Aarssen L.W., Lortie CJ 2008. Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3202. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003202
20. Hammerschmidt K., Reinhardt K, Rolff J 2008. Does doubleblind review favor female authors? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 354.
21. Heidari S., Babor T 2013. Evaluate gender equality in journals. Nature 495: 47.
22. Holt A., Webb T 2007. Gender in Ecology: Where are the female professors? Bulletin (The British Ecological Society) 38: 51-62.
23. Knobloch-Westerwick S., Glynn CJ, Huge M 2013. The Matilda Effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication 35: 603-625.
24. Landivar L.C. 2013. Labor force participation among Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White mothers in 20 occupations. In: Kohlman MH, Krieg DB, Dickerson BJ eds Notions of family: intersectional perspectives. Advances in Gender Research 17. Bingley, UK, Emerald Group. Pp. 263-286.
25. Larivière V., Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR 2013. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504: 211-213.
26. Leahey E. 2007. Not by productivity alone: how visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review 72: 533-561.
27. Ledin A., Bornmann L, Gannon F, Wallon G 2007. A persistent problem: Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports 8: 982-987. http://embor. embopress.org/content/8/11/982
28. Lee C.J., Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2-17.
29. Mazerolle M.J. 2013. Package 'AICcmodavg': Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AICc. R package version 1.32. http://cran.r-project.org/
30. McGuire K.L., Primack RB, Losos EC 2012. Dramatic improvements and persistent challenges for women ecologists. Bioscience 62: 189-196.
31. Moss-Racusin C.A., Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 109: 16474-16479.
32. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics 2013. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special report NSF 13-304. Arlington, VA. http://www. nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
33. R Core Team 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org.
34. Shen H. 2013. Mind the gender gap. Nature 495: 22-24.
35. Snyder T.D., Dillow SA 2012. Digest of Education Statistics 2011, NCES 2012-001. Washington, DC, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
36. Symonds M.R.E., Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar M.A. 2006. Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE 1: e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127
37. Tregenza T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 349.
38. Valkonen L., Brooks J 2011. Gender balance in Cortex acceptance rates. Cortex 47: 763-770.
39. Vernos I. 2013. Quotas are questionable. Nature 495: 39.
40. Webb T.J., O'Hara B, Freckleton RP 2008. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 351-353.
41. Whittaker R.J. 2008. Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 478-479.