Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Functional Ecology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 126-139

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c BRITISH ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Authorship; Gender bias; Gender discrimination; Peer review; Women in science

Indexed keywords

GENDER DISPARITY; LITERATURE REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PUBLISHING; WOMENS STATUS;

EID: 84953360043     PISSN: 02698463     EISSN: 13652435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12587     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. & Caprasecca, A. (2009) Gender differences in research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of the italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79, 517-539.
2. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I. & van den Besselaar, P. (2012) Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93, 857-868.
3. Baethge, C. (2008) First authors in Deutsches Ärzteblatt: women are catching up. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 105, 507-9.
4. Barrios, M., Villarroya, A. & Borrego, Ã. (2013) Scientific production in psychology: a gender analysis. Scientometrics, 95, 15-23.
5. Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G.H., Kulkarni, A.V., Devereaux, P.J., Leece, P., Bajammal, S. et al. (2014) Perceptions of authors' contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1049-1054.
6. Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M.L., Crosby, F.J. & Muller, C.B. (2011) Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622-643.
7. Blank, R.M. (1991) The effects of double-blind vs. single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review, 81, 1041-1067.
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., Mutz, R. & Daniel, H.D. (2007) Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226-238.
10. 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.
11. Bozeman, B. & Gaughan, M. (2011) How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393-1402.
12. 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.
13. Budden, A., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R. & Lortie, C. (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 4-6.
14. Burns, C.S. (2015) Characteristics of a megajournal: a bibliometric case study. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 3, 16-30.
15. Cleary, M., Jackson, D., Walter, G., Watson, R. & Hunt, G.E. (2012) Editorial: location, location, location - the position of authors in scholarly publishing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 809-811.
16. Danell, R. (2014) The contribution of authors: A study of the relationship between the size and composition of author teams. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014, 3-5 September, Leiden, the Netherlands (pp. 123-131).
17. Dickson, D. (1997) Female scientists wanted-apply to UK research councils. Nature, 390, 431-431.
18. Dotson, B. (2011) Women as authors in the pharmacy literature: 1989-2009. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 68, 1736-1739.
19. Erren, T.C., Groß, J.V., Shaw, D.M. & Selle, B. (2014) Representation of women as authors, reviewers, editors in chief, and editorial board members at 6 general medical journals in 2010 and 2011. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174, 633-635.
20. Feramisco, J.D., Leitenberger, J.J., Redfern, S.I., Bian, A., Xie, X.J. & Resneck, J.S. (2009) A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 60, 63-69.
21. 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.
22. Fox, C.W. & Burns, C.S. (2015) The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: Editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal. Ecology and Evolution, 5, 1970-1980.
23. Fox, C.W., Burns, C.S. & Meyer, J.A. (2015) Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30, 136-149.
24. Frandsen, T.F. & Nicolaisen, J. (2010) What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 608-617.
25. Friesen, H.G. (1998) Equal opportunities in Canada. Nature, 391, 326-326.
26. Gilbert, J.R., Williams, E.S. & Lundberg, G.D. (1994) Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA, 272, 139-142.
27. Grant, J., Burden, S. & Breen, G. (1997) No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature, 390, 438-438.
28. Heckenberg, A. & Druml, C. (2010) Gender aspects in medical publication-the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122, 141-145.
29. Hunter, M. (2010) The great experiment: the Royal Society. History Today, 60, 34-40.
30. Jagsi, R., Guancial, E.A., Worobey, C.C., Henault, L.E., Chang, Y., Starr, R. et al. (2006) The 'gender gap' in authorship of academic medical literature - a 35-Year perspective. The New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 281-287.
31. Kaltman, J.R., Evans, F.J., Danthi, N.S., Wu, C.O., DiMichele, D.M. & Lauer, M.S. (2014) Prior publication productivity, grant percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants. Circulation Research, 115, 617-624.
32. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C.J. & 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.
33. Kongkiatkamon, S., Yuan, J.C.C., Lee, D.J., Knoernschild, K.L., Campbell, S.D. & Sukotjo, C. (2010) Gender disparities in prosthodontics: authorship and leadership, 13 years of observation. Journal of Prosthodontics, 19, 565-570.
34. Krawczyk, M. & Smyk, M. (2014) Author's gender affects the rating of academic articles: Evidence from an Incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment. University of Warsaw, Working Paper no. 7/2014 (124).
35. Lane, J.A. & Linden, D.J. (2009) Is there gender bias in the peer review process at Journal of Neurophysiology? Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 2195-2196.
36. Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P. & Gingras, Y. (2011) Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87, 483-498.
37. Larivière, V., Ni, G., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. (2013) Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211-213.
38. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C.R. & Tsou, A. (2014) Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1323-1332.
39. Leahey, E. (2006) Gender differences in productivity: research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20, 754-780.
40. Ledin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F. & Wallon, G. (2007) A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports, 8, 982-987.
41. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. (2013) Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2-17.
42. Leemann, R.J. & Stutz, H. (2008) Gender and research funding (GEFO). Final report and synthesis, Swiss National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/wom_ber_gefo_synthesis_report_e.pdf
43. Ley, T.J. & Hamilton, B.H. (2008) The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science, 322, 1472-1474.
44. Lipetz, B.-A. (1999) Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 994-1003.
45. Lloyd, M.E. (1990) Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 539-543.
46. Long, M.T., Leszczynski, A., Thompson, K.D., Wasan, S.K. & Calderwood, A.H. (2015) Female authorship in major academic gastroenterology journals: a look over 20 years. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 81, 1440-1447.e3.
47. Marsh, H.W., Jayasinghe, U.W. & Bond, N.W. (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63, 160-168.
48. Marsh, H.W., Jayasinghe, U.W. & Bond, N.W. (2011) Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: a substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 167-180.
49. Marsh, H.W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.D. & O'Mara, A. (2009) Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290-1326.
50. Martin, L.J. (2012) Where are the women in ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 177-178.
51. 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.
52. Merton, R.K. (1973) The normative structure of science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed.R.K. Merton ), pp. 267-278. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA. (Original work published 1942).
53. Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J. & Handelsman, J. (2012) Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474-16479.
54. Mutz, R., Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.D. (2015) Does gender matter in grant peer review? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 121-129.
55. Nakhaie, M.R. (2002) Gender differences in publication among university professors in Canada*. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 39, 151-179.
56. Oertelt-Prigione, S. (2012) Sex and gender in medical literature. Sex and Gender Aspects in Clinical Medicine (eds S. Oertelt-Prigione & V. Regitz-Zagrosek ) pp. 9-15. Springer, London, UK.
57. 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.
58. Primack, R.B., Ellwood, E., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Marrs, R. & Mulligan, A. (2009) Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 2415-2418.
59. Rigg, L.S., McCarragher, S. & Krmenec, A. (2011) Authorship, collaboration, and gender: fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals. The Professional Geographer, 64, 491-502.
60. Sandström, U. & Hällsten, M. (2008) Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74, 175-189.
61. Shah, D.N., Huang, J., Ying, G.S., Pietrobon, R. & O'Brien, J.M. (2013) Trends in female representation in published ophthalmology literature, 2000-2009. Digital Journal of Ophthalmology, 19, 50.
62. Shapiro, D.W., Wenger, N.S. & Shapiro, M.F. (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA, 271, 438-442.
63. Sidhu, R., Rajashekhar, P., Lavin, V.L., Parry, J., Attwood, J., Holdcroft, A. et al. (2009) The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 102, 337-342.
64. Sonnenwald, D.H. (2007) Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643-681.
65. Spier, R. (2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357-358.
66. 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.
67. Tenenbaum, H.R., Crosby, F.J. & Gliner, M.D. (2001) Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326-341.
68. Tregenza, T. (2002) Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 349-350.
69. Walker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K. & Telefont, M.l. (2015) Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study. F1000Research 2015, 4, 21.
70. Waltman, L. (2012) An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 700-711.
71. Webb, T.J., O'Hara, B. & Freckleton, R.P. (2008) Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Heredity, 77, 282-291.
72. van der Weijden, I. & Medina, C.C. (2014) Gender, academic position and scientific publishing: A bibliometric analysis of the oeuvres of researchers. Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden, 673.
73. Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343.
74. 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.
75. Wren, J.D., Kozak, K.Z., Johnson, K.R., Deakyne, S.J., Schilling, L.M. & Dellavalle, R.P. (2007) The write position. EMBO Reports, 8, 988-991.
76. Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F. & Uzzi, B. (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036-1039.
77. Xie, Y. & Shauman, K.A. (1998) Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, 847-870.
78. Zbar, A. & Frank, E. (2011) Significance of authorship position: an open-ended international assessment. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 341, 106-109.
79. Zuckerman, H.A. (1968) Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 276-291.