Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity

Conservation Biology

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 297-299

  Darling, E S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SEX RATIO; STANDARDS; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIBLIOMETRICS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CULTURAL DIVERSITY; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ECOLOGY; EDITORIAL POLICIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SEX DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 84938966265     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12333     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Angier, N. 2013. Mystery of the missing women in science. New York Times, 2 September. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/mystery-of-the-missing-women-in-science.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed April 2014).
2. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H. D. Daniel. 2007. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics 1:226-238.
3. Budden, A. E., T. Tregenza, L. W. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, and C. J. Lortie. 2008a. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 231:4-6.
4. Budden, A. E., C. J. Lortie, T. Tregenza, L. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, and R. Leimu. 2008b. Response to Webb et al. Double-blind review. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 237:353-354.
5. Ceci, S. J., and W. M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:3157-3162.
6. Cho, M. K., A. C. Justice, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, J. F. Waeckerle, M. L. Callaham, and D. Rennie. 1998. Masking author identity in peer review. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 280:243-245.
7. Ding, W. W., F. Murray, and T. E. Stuart. 2006. Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 313:665-667.
8. Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2001. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of "blind" auditions on female musicians. The American Economic Review 90:715-741.
9. Hammerschmidt, K., K. Reinhardt, and J. Rolff. 2008. Does double-blind review favor female authors? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 67:354-354.
10. Hill, S., and F. Provost. 2003. The myth of the double-blind review? Author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 52:179-184.
11. Holden, C. 2001. General contentment masks gender gap in first AAAS salary and job survey. Science 294:396-341.
12. Justice, A. C., M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, and D. Rennie. 1998. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 280:240-242.
13. Kmietowicz, Z. 2008. Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics. British Medical Journal 336:241.
14. Larivière, V., N. Chaoqun, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, and C. R. Sugimoto. 2013. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211-213.
15. Link, A. M. 1998. US and non-US submissions. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2803:246-247.
16. Lortie, C. J., L. W. Aarssen, A. E. Budden, J. K. Koricheva, R. Leimu, and T. Tregenza. 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 116:1247-1253.
17. Møller, A. P., and M. D. Jennions. 2001. Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1610:580-586.
18. Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10941:16474-16479.
19. Nature. 2008. Working double-blind [corrected]. Nature 451:605-606. Available from http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/working_doubleblind.html (accessed October 2013).
20. Nature Climate Change. 2013. Blind faith. Nature Climate Change 3:525.
21. Nature Geoscience. 2013. Double-blind peer review. Nature Geoscience 6:413.
22. NSF. 2013. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: academic employment statistics. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/digest/theme5.cfm (accessed December 2013).
23. Nylenna, M., P. Riis, and Y. Karlsson. 1994. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2722:149-151.
24. Park, I. U., M. W. Peacey, and M. R. Munafò. 2013. Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 506:93-96.
25. Pollack, E. 2013. Why are there still so few women in science? Times Magazine, New York, 3 October 2013. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?pagewanted=alland_r=0 (accessed October 2013).
26. Primack, R. B., E. Ellwood, A. J. Miller-Rushing, R. Marrs, and A. Mulligan. 2009. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation 142:2415-2418.
27. Shen, H. 2013. Inequality quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature 495:22-24.
28. Webb, T. J., B. O'Hara, and R. P. Freckleton. 2008. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 237:351-353.
29. Whittaker, R. J. 2008. Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:478-479.
30. Wold, A., and C. Wennerås. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 387:341-343.