Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

Functional Ecology

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 270-280

  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

gender bias; peer review; preferred reviewers; scientific publishing

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; FUNCTIONAL CHANGE; GENDER RELATIONS; LIFE SCIENCE; LITERATURE REVIEW; PROBABILITY; PUBLISHING; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 84966668037     PISSN: 02698463     EISSN: 13652435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12665     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Benos, D.J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J.M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M. et al. (2007) The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 145–152.
2. Blume, A.W. & Schmaling, K.B. (2016) The privilege and burden of peer review. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22, 147–150.
3. Bornmann, L. (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 197–245.
4. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.D. (2009) Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18, 262–272.
5. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D.D. (2010) Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics PLoS ONE, 5, e13345+.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Cooper, M.L. (2009) Problems, pitfalls, and promise in the peer-review process: commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 84–90.
9. De Mesnard, L. (2010) On Hochberg et al.'s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”. Scientometrics, 84, 903–917.
10. Earnshaw, J.J., Farndon, J.R., Guillou, P.J., Johnson, C.D., Murie, J.A. & Murray, G.D. (2000) A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82, 133–135.
11. Fawzi, M.H. (2012) Should peer reviewers be suggested by authors? Middle East Current Psychiatry, 19, 197–199.
12. 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.
13. Fox, C.W., Burns, C.S. & Meyer, J.A. (2016) Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30, 140–153.
14. Fox, C.W., Burns, C.S., Muncy, A.D. & Meyer, J.A. (2016a) Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30, 126–139.
15. Fox, C.W., Burns, C.S., Muncy, A.D. & Meyer, J.A. (2016b). Data from: Author-suggested reviewers: Gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal. Dryad Digital Repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.37312.
16. Goldsmith, L.A., Blalock, E.N., Bobkova, H.N. & Hall, R.P. (2005) Abstract 457: Effect of authors' suggestions concerning reviewers on manuscript acceptance. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 125, A78–A78.
17. Grimm, D. (2005) Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science, 309, 1438–1441.
18. Helton, M.L. & Balistreri, W.F. (2011) Peering into peer-review. The Journal of Pediatrics, 159, 150–151.
19. Hochberg, M.E., Chase, J.M., Gotelli, N.J., Hastings, A. & Naeem, S. (2009) The tragedy of the reviewers commons. Ecology Letters, 12, 2–4.
20. Hurst, J.R., Howard, E.C. & Wedzicha, J.A. (2005) Reviewer selection: author or editor knows best? Thorax, 60, 799.
21. Jayasinghe, U.W., Marsh, H.W. & Bond, N. (2003) A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 166, 279–300.
22. Kaatz, A., Gutierrez, B. & Carnes, M. (2014) Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 35, 371–373.
23. Kowalczuk, M.K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S.L., Patel, J. & Moylan, E.C. (2015) Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5, e008707.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Marsh, H.W., Bond, N.W. & Jayasinghe, U.W. (2007) Peer review process: assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid. Australian Psychologist, 42, 33–38.
27. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M. (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
28. Moore, J.L., Neilson, E.G., Siegel, V. & on behalf of the Associate Editors at the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2011) Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 22, 1598–1602.
29. Nature (2012) Nature's sexism. Nature, 491, 485.
30. Opthof, T., Coronel, R. & Janse, M.J. (2002) The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: Priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular Research, 56, 339–346.
31. Pettorelli, N., Evans, D.M., Garner, T.W.J., Katzner, T., Gompper, M.E., Altwegg, R. et al. (2013) Addressing gender imbalances in Animal Con-servation. Animal Conservation, 16, 131–133.
32. Rivara, F.P., Cummings, P., Ringold, S., Bergman, A.B., Joffe, A. & Christakis, D.A. (2007) A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 202–205.
33. Ross, J.S., Gross, C.P., Desai, M.M., Hong, Y.L., Grant, A.O., Daniels, S.R. et al. (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1675–1680.
34. Scharschmidt, B.F., DeAmicis, A., Bacchetti, P. & Held, M.J. (1994) Chance, concurrence, and clustering - Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 93, 1877–1880.
35. 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.
36. Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A. & Black, N. (2006) Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 295, 314–317.
37. 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.
38. Stahel, P.F. & Moore, E.E. (2014) Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12, 179.
39. Tonks, A. (1995) Reviewers chosen by authors. British Medical Journal, 311, 210.
40. Trafimow, D. & Rice, S. (2009) What if social scientists had reviewed great scientific works of the past? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 65–78.
41. Wager, E., Parkin, E.C. & Tamber, P.S. (2006) Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study BMC Medicine, 4, 13+.
42. 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.