An Examination of Gender Differences in the American Fisheries Society Peer-Review Process;Une analyse des différences entre les sexes dans le processus de relecture par les pairs de l'American Fisheries Society (Société américaine de la Pêche);Diferencias de género en el proceso de revisión por pares en la Sociedad Americana de Pesquerías

Fisheries

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 442-451

  Handley, Grace ^a   Frantz, Cynthia M ^a   Kocovsky, Patrick M ^b   DeVries, Dennis R ^c   Cooke, Steven J ^d   Claussen, Julie ^e  

^a OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

^b US Geological Survey Lake Erie Biological Station   (United States)

^c AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941348207     PISSN: 03632415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1059824     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. L.W.Aarssen, 2012. Are peer-review filters optimal for the progress of science in ecology and evolution? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5: 9–12.
2. B.A.Barres, 2006. Does gender matter? Nature 442: 133–136.
3. N.Bhattacharyya,, and N.L.Shapiro. 2000. Increased female authorship in otolaryngology over the past three decades. The Laryngoscope 110: 358–361.
4. R.M.Blank, 1991. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 81 (5): 1041–1067.
5. L.Bornmann,. 2011. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45: 199–245.
6. R.M.Borsuk,, L.W.Aarssen, A.E.Budden, J.Koricheva, R.Leimu, T.Tregenza, and C.J.Lortie. 2009. To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. Bioscience 59: 985–989.
7. A.E.Budden,, T.Tregenza, L.W.Aarssen, J.Koricheva, R.Leimu, and C.J.Lortie. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(1): 4–6.
8. S.J.Ceci,, and W.M.Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 3157–3162.
9. N.A.Connelly,, T.L.Brown, and J.M.Hardiman. 2006. AFS men and women differ most in their lifestyle choices. Fisheries 31(10): 503–506.
10. D.DeVries,, E.A.Marschall, and R.A.Stein. 2009. Exploring the peer review process: what is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries 34(6): 270–279.
11. J.Duch,, X.H.T.Zeng, M.Sales-Pardo, F.Radicchi, S.Otis, T.K.Woodruff, and L.A.N.Amaral. 2012. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. Public Library of Science ONE 7(12): e51332. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0051332.
12. L.Engqvist,, and J.G.Frommen. 2008. Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Animal Behaviour 76: E1–E2. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023.
13. W.G.Franzin,, and L.Alade. 2009. Recognizing diversity in AFS. Fisheries 34(2): 56.
14. J.R.Gilbert,, E.S.Williams, and G.D.Lundberg. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 139–142.
15. S.Heidari,, and T.Babor. 2013. Science editors: evaluate gender equality in journals. Nature 495(7439): 47.
16. R.Hilborn,. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries 31(11): 554–555.
17. S.Hill,, and F.Provost. 2003. The myth of the double-blind review?: author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 5(2): 179–184.
18. M.Hojat,, J.S.Gonnella, and A.S.Caelleigh. 2003. Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education 8: 75–96.
19. R.Jagsi,, E.A.Guancial, C.C.Worobey, L.E.Henault, Y.Chang, R.Starr, N.J.Tarbell, and E.M.Hylek. 2006. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 281–287.
20. D.Kaminski,, and C.Geisler. 2012. Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender. Science 335: 864–866.
21. J.P.Kassirer,, and E.W.Campion. 1994. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association - US Edition 272 (2): 96–97.
22. M.A.Kliewer,, D.M.DeLong, K.Freed, C.B.Jenkins, E.K.Paulson, and J.M.Provenzale. 2004. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. American Journal of Roentgenology 183: 1545–1550.
23. S.Knobloch-Westerwick,, C.J.Glynn, and M.Huge. 2013. The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment in gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communications 35: 603–625.
24. J.R.Landis,, and G.G.Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.
25. M.E.Lloyd, 1990. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23: 539–543.
26. C.M.Moffitt, 2012. Diversity in natural resource science professions: using feminine attributes to broaden diversity. Fisheries 37(8): 376–377.
27. R.Primack,, 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(11): 2415–2418.
28. A.Rapoport,. 2004. Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 04-323, Arlington, Virginia.
29. S.W.Raudenbush,, and A.S.Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, second edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
30. J.S.Ross,, C.P.Gross, M.M.Desai, Y.Hong, A.O.Grant, S.R.Daniels, V.C.Hachinski, R.J.Gibbons, T.J.Gardner, and H.M.Krumholz. 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association 295(14): 1675–1680. DOI:10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.
31. H.Shen,. 2013. Inequality quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature 495(7439): 22–24. DOI:10.1038/495022a.
32. R.Smith,. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4): 178–182.
33. R.Snodgrass,. 2007. Editorial: single- versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 32(1): 1–29.
34. J.Steele,, J.B.James, and R.C.Barnett. 2002. Learning in a man's world: examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26: 46–50.
35. G.White,, J.Claussen, C.Moffitt, B.Norcross, and D.Parrish. 2013. Dr. J Frances Allen: pioneer of women in fisheries. Fisheries 38(3): 103–111.
36. D.A.Wing,, R.S.Benner, R.Petersen, R.Newcomb, and J.R.Scott. 2010. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women's Health 19: 1919–1923.