Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Functional Ecology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 140-153

  Fox, Charles W ^a   Burns, C Sean ^b   Meyer, Jennifer A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c BRITISH ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Editorial board composition; Gender balance; Gender bias; Peer review

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; FUNCTIONAL CHANGE; GENDER DISPARITY; GENDER RELATIONS; GEOGRAPHICAL REGION; LITERATURE REVIEW; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 84953349333     PISSN: 02698463     EISSN: 13652435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12529     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Adamo, S.A. (2013) Attrition of women in the biological sciences: workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited. BioScience, 63, 43-48.
2. Addis, E. & Villa, P. (2003) The editorial boards of Italian economics journals: women, gender, and social networking. Feminist Economics, 9, 75-91.
3. Alzahrani, S. (2010) The role of editorial boards of scholarly journals on the green and the gold road to open access. PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia. https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/80498/ubc_2010_fall_alzahrani_saad.pdf
4. Amrein, K., Langmann, A., Fahrleitner-Pammer, A., Pieber, T.R. & Zollner-Schwetz, I. (2011) Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gender Medicine, 8, 378-387.
5. Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., Cioni, M. & Pisani, C. (2014) Crossing the hurdle: the determinants of individual scientific performance. Scientometrics, 101, 2035-2062.
6. Belcher, D.D. (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
7. Black, N., Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R. & Evans, S. (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 280, 231.
8. Bonnet, X., Shine, R. & Lourdais, O. (2004) Does gender affect a scientist's research output in evolutionary ecology? Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10, 353-360.
9. Bornmann, L. (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 197-245.
10. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.D. (2007) Gatekeepers of science: effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 83-91.
11. Borsuk, R.M., Aarssen, L.W., Budden, A.E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T. et al. (2009) To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59, 985-989.
12. Braun, T. & Dióspatonyi, I. (2006) Gatekeeping in the international journal literature of chemistry. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1652-1656.
13. Buckley, H.L., Sciligo, A.R., Adair, K.L., Case, B.S. & Monks, J.M. (2014) Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology? New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 38, 335-339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24060812
14. Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R. & Lortie, C.J. (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 4-6.
15. Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E. & Rinehart, J.F. (2010) How far She's come: A longitudinal assessment of women's qualifications and productivity in ecology. https://eco.confex.com/eco/2010/techprogram/P23887.HTM.
16. Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.M. (2011) Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162.
17. Ceci, S.J., Ginther, D.K., Kahn, S. & Williams, W.M. (2014) Women in academic science: a changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75-141.
18. Cho, A.H., Johnson, S.A., Schuman, C.E., Adler, J.M., Gonzalez, O., Graves, S.J. et al. (2014) Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ, 2, e542.
19. Davo, M.C., Vives, C. & Álvarez-Dardet, C. (2003) Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 936-937.
20. Demarest, B., Freeman, G. & Sugimoto, C. (2014) The reviewer in the mirror: Examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review. Scientometrics, 101, 717-735.
21. Dickersin, K., Fredman, L., Flegal, K.M., Scott, J.D. & Crawley, B. (1998) Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 260-264.
22. Evans, A.T., Mcnutt, R.A., Fletcher, S.W. & Fletcher, R.H. (1993) The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8, 422-428.
23. Fox, M.F. (2008) Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: the case of academic science and engineering. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 23, 73-103.
24. García-Carpintero, E., Granadino, B. & Plaza, L.M. (2010) The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of scientific output of the same countries. Scientometrics, 84, 799-811.
25. Gilbert, J.R., Williams, E.S. & Lundberg, G.D. (1994) Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 139-142.
26. Greenfield, T.A. (1997) Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81, 259-276.
27. Griffith, A.L. (2010) Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29, 911-922.
28. Grod, O.N., Lortie, C.J. & Budden, A.E. (2010) Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 187-192.
29. Grod, O.N., Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Aarssen, L.W. et al. (2008) Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE, 3, e3202.
30. Hodgson, G.M. & Rothman, H. (1999) The editors and authors of economic journals: a case study of institutional oligopoly? The Economic Journal, 109, 165-186.
31. Holt, A. & Webb, T. (2007) Gender in ecology: where are the female professors. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society, 38, 51-62.
32. Isenberg, S.J., Sanchez, E. & Zafran, K.C. (2009) The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 93, 881-884.
33. Jagsi, R., Tarbell, N.J., Henault, L.E., Chang, Y. & Hylek, E.M. (2008) The representation of women on the editorial boards of major medical journals: a 35-year perspective. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 544-548.
34. Kaltman, J.R., Evans, F.J., Danthi, N.S., Wu, C.O., DiMichele, D.M. & Lauer, M.S. (2014) Prior publication productivity, grand percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI Cardiovascular R01 Grants. Circulation Research, 115, 617-624.
35. Kliewer, M.A., Freed, K.S., DeLong, D.M., Pickhardt, P.J. & Provenzale, J.M. (2005) Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184, 1731-1735.
36. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013) Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211-213.
37. Ledin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F. & Wallon, G. (2007) A persistent problem: traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports, 8, 982-987.
38. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. (2012) Bias in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2-17.
39. Leslie, S.J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M. & Freeland, E. (2015) Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across disciplines. Science, 347, 262-265.
40. Leydesdorff, L. & Wagner, C. (2009) Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78, 23-36.
41. Lloyd, M.E. (1990) Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 539-543.
42. Lockwood, J.A., Reiners, D.S. & Reiners, W.A. (2013) The future of ecology: a collision of expectations and desires? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 188-193.
43. Martin, L.J. (2012) Where are the women in ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 177-178.
44. Mauleón, E., Hillán, L., Moreno, L., Gómez, I. & Bordons, M. (2013) Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics, 95, 87-114.
45. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M. (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
46. McSweeney, F.K., Donahoe, P. & Swindell, S. (2000) Women in applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 267.
47. Metz, I. & Harzing, A.W. (2009) Gender diversity in editorial boards of management journals. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 540-557.
48. Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T. & Alexander, A. (2008) Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 215-233.
49. Morton, M.J. & Sonnad, S.S. (2007) Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99, 764.
50. Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M. & Handelsman, J. (2012) Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 16474-16479.
51. Nature. (2012) Nature's sexism. Nature, 491, 485. http://www.nature.com/news/nature-s-sexism-1.11850.
52. Ochuko-Emore, M.E., Beezhold, J. & Morakinyo, J. (2010) Authorship, gender and geography in journals published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The Psychiatrist, 34, 471-474.
53. Park, S.H. & Gordon, M.E. (1996) Publication records and tenure decisions in the field of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-128.
54. Pettorelli, N., Evans, D.M., Garner, T.W.J., Katzner, T., Gompper, M.E., Altwegg, R. et al. (2013) Addressing gender imbalances in Animal Conservation. Animal Conservation, 16, 131-133.
55. Petty, R.E., Fleming, M.A. & Fabrigar, L.R. (1999) The review process at PSPB: correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 188-203.
56. Porter, C.L., Christian, L. & Poling, A. (2003) Participation of women as authors and editors in journals concerned with mental retardation and related topics. Mental Retardation, 41, 1-6.
57. Rees, T. (2011) The gendered construction of scientific excellence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36, 133-145.
58. Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H.L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D.M., Saul, J. et al. (2013) Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063-2069.
59. Shen, H. (2013) Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495, 22-24.
60. Siler, K., Lee, K. & Bero, L. (2015) Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 360-365.
61. Symonds, M.R., Gemmell, N.J., Braisher, T.L., Gorringe, K.L. & Elgar, M.A. (2006) Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE, 1, e127.
62. Tite, L. & Schroter, S. (2007) Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 9-12.
63. Uzun, A. (2004) Assessing internationality of scholarly journals through foreign authorship patterns: the case of major journals in information science, and scientometrics. Scientometrics, 61, 457-465.
64. Walker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K. & Telefont, M. (2015) Bias in peer review: a case study [v1; ref status: approved with reservations 2, http://f1000r.es/4yq]. F1000Research, 4, 21.
65. West, J.D., Jacquet, J., King, M.M., Correll, S.J. & Bergstrom, C.T. (2013) The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8, e66212.
66. Willett, P. (2013) The characteristics of journal editorial boards in library and information science. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 3, 5-17.
67. Wing, D.A., Benner, R.S., Peterson, R., Newcomb, R. & Scott, J.R. (2010) Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women's Health, 19, 1919-1923.
68. Zhou, P. & Leydesdorff, L. (2006) The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35, 83-104.