Gender bias in scholarly peer review

eLife

Volumn 6, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Helmer, Markus ^a,b,c   Schottdorf, Manuel ^a,b   Neef, Andreas ^a,b   Battaglia, Demian ^b,d  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR DYNAMICS AND SELF ORGANIZATION   (Germany)

^b BERNSTEIN CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE   (Germany)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; IDENTITY; PARITY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SEXISM;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SEXISM;

EID: 85015969665     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.21718     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. Aldrich H. 1989. Networking among women entrepreneurs. In: Hagan O, Rivchun C, Sexton D (ed). Women-Owned Businesses. New York: Praeger. p. 103–132.
2. American Psychological Association. 2007. Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls. Washington: APA.
3. Avin C, Keller B, Lotker Z, Mathieu C, Peleg D, Pignolet Y-A. 2015. Homophily and the glass ceiling effect in social networks. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. doi: 10.1145/2688073.2688097
4. Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH. 2008. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 64:131–138. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2648.2008.04816.x, PMID: 18764847
5. Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A. 2017. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science 355:389– 391. doi: 10.1126/science.aah6524
6. Bielby WT, Baron JN. 1986. Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical discrimination. American Journal of Sociology 91:759–799. doi: 10.1086/228350
7. Bloch C. 2012. The Janus face of the peer-review. In: Passion and Paranoia: Emotions and the Culture of Emotion in Academia. Surrey, UK: Ashgate. p. 55– 69.
8. Borsuk RM, Aarssen LW, Budden AE, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Tregenza T, Lortie CJ. 2009. To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience 59:985–989. doi: 10. 1525/bio.2009.59.11.10
9. Bott H. 1928. Observation of play activities in a nursery school. Genetic Psychology Monographs 4: 44–88.
10. Bourdieu P. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14:19–47. doi: 10.1177/053901847501400602
11. Brass DJ. 1985. Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal 28: 327–343. doi: 10.2307/256204
12. Buckley HL, Sciligo AR, Adair KL, Case BS, Monks JM. 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 & Evolution 23:4–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
14. Caldeira GA, Patterson SC. 1987. Political friendship in the legislature. The Journal of Politics 49:953–975. doi: 10.2307/2130779
15. Campbell LG, Mehtani S, Dozier ME, Rinehart J. 2013. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One 8:e79147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079147
16. Caplar N, Tacchella S, Birrer S. 2016. Quantitative evaluation of gender Bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. arXiv. 1610.08984.
17. Ceci SJ, Williams WM, Barnett SM. 2009. Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin 135: 218–261. doi: 10.1037/a0014412
18. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. 2010. Sex differences in math-Intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19:275–279. doi: 10.1177/0963721410383241
19. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS 108:3157–3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108
20. Centola D. 2011. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334: 1269–1272. doi: 10.1126/science.1207055
21. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. 1984. The productivity puzzle: persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 2:1.
22. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. 1987. Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science. Scientific American 256:119–125. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0287-119
23. Cole JR. 1979. 1st Edition. Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. New York: The Free Press.
24. Cole S. 1992. Making Science. Harvard University Press.
25. del Río MF, Strasser K. 2013. Preschool children’s beliefs about gender differences in academic skills. Sex Roles 68:231–238. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0195-6
26. Demarest B, Freeman G, Sugimoto CR. 2014. The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review. Scientometrics 101:717–735. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1354-z
27. Duru-Bellat M. 2008. La (re)production de rapports sociaux de sexe: quelle place pour l’institution scolaire? Travail Genre Et Societés 19:131–149. doi: 10.3917/tgs.019.0131
28. Eder D, Hallinan MT. 1978. Sex differences in children’s friendships. American Sociological Review 43:237–250. doi: 10.2307/2094701
29. ETAN Expert Working Group on Women and Science. 2000. Science Policies in the European Union: Promoting Excellence Through Mainstreaming Gender Equality. Luxembourg: European Commission.
30. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. 1995. Solid Investments: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor.
31. Feld SL. 1981. The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology 86:1015–1035. doi: 10.1086/227352
32. Feld SL. 1984. The structured use of personal associates. Social Forces 62:640–652. doi: 10.2307/2578704
33. Fox CW, Burns CS, Meyer JA. 2016. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology 30:140–153. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12529
34. Galaskiewicz J. 1985. Professional networks and the institutionalization of a single mind set. American Sociological Review 50:639–658. doi: 10.2307/2095379
35. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? JAMA 272:139–142. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020065018
36. Goulden M, Mason MA, Frasch K. 2011. Keeping women in the science pipeline. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 638:141–162. doi: 10.1177/0002716211416925
37. Hamovitch W, Morgenstern RD. 1977. Children and the productivity of academic women. The Journal of Higher Education 48:633–645. doi: 10.2307/1979009
38. Handley G, Frantz CM, Kocovsky PM, DeVries DR, Cooke SJ, Claussen J. 2015b. An examination of gender differences in the American Fisheries Society peer-review process. Fisheries 40:442–451. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1059824
39. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. 2015a. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. PNAS 112:13201–13206. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112
40. Holt A, Webb T. 2007. Gender in ecology: where are the female professors. Bull Br Ecol Soc 38:51–62.
41. Humphries MD, Gurney K. 2008. Network ‘small-world-ness’: A quantitative method for determining canonical network equivalence. PLoS One 3: e0002051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002051
42. Ibarra H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 37:422–447. doi: 10.2307/2393451
43. Isbell LA, Young TP, Harcourt AH. 2012. Stag parties linger: Continued gender bias in a female-rich scientific discipline. PLoS One 7:e49682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049682
44. Knapp S. 2005. A suitable job for a woman. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:55–56. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.11.016
45. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, 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.
46. Kyvik S, Teigen M. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology & Human Values 21:54–71. doi: 10.1177/016224399602100103
47. Kyvik S. 1990. Motherhood and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 20:149–160. doi: 10.1177/030631290020001005
48. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. 2013. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211–213. doi: 10.1038/504211a
49. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK. 1954. Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M (ed.). Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York: Van Nostrand. p. 18–66.
50. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
51. Lerback J, Hanson B. 2017. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature 541:455–457. doi: 10. 1038/541455a
52. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. 2008. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science 322:1472–1474. doi: 10.1126/science.1165878
53. Lloyd ME. 1990. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23:539–543. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-539
54. Long JS, Fox MF. 1995. Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 45–71. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
55. Mark NP. 2003. Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches. American Sociological Review 68:319–345. doi: 10. 2307/1519727
56. Mazur A, McBride Stetson D. 1995. Comparative State Feminism. London: Sage.
57. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
58. Merton RK. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63.
59. Merton RK. 1973. The Normative Structure of Science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 267–280.
60. Misra J, Lundquist JH, Holmes E, Agiomavritis S. 2011. The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe 97:22-26.
61. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109: 16474–16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109
62. Mulkay MJ. 1979. Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. Allen & Unwin.
63. National Science Foundation. 2016. National center for science and engineering statistics. Doctorate Recipients From US. www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/
64. Nature Neuroscience. 1999. Pros and cons of open peer review. Nature Neuroscience 2:197–198. doi: 10.1038/6295, PMID: 10195206
65. Nature Neuroscience. 2006. Women in neuroscience: a numbers game. Nature Neuroscience 9:853. doi: 10.1038/nn0706-853, PMID: 16801912
66. Nature. 2012. Nature’s sexism. Nature 491:495. doi: 10.1038/491495a, PMID: 23189321
67. Nature. 2013. Science for all. Nature 495:5. PMID: 23472264
68. Newman MEJ. 2001. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS 98:404–409. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.404
69. Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Hansen JJ, Devos T, Lindner NM, Ranganath KA, Smith CT, Olson KR, Chugh D, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. 2007. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology 18:36–88. doi: 10.1080/10463280701489053
70. Outshoorn J, Kantola J. 2007. Changing State Feminism. Palgrave McMillan.
71. Outshoorn J. 2005. New politics, new opportunities? The women’s policy agency in the Netherlands in the last decade. Paper for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshop. Granada. p. 14–19.
72. Paludi MA, Bauer WD. 1983. Goldberg revisited: what’s in an author’s name. Sex Roles 9:387–390. doi: 10.1007/BF00289673
73. Pan L, Kalinaki E. 2015. Mapping Gender in the German Research Arena: Elsevier Analytical Services.
74. Park RE, Burgess EW. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
75. Parodi M. 2011. Les discriminations entre les hommes et les femmes au prisme de l’opinion. In: Milewski F, Perivier H (eds). Les Discriminations Entre Les Femmes Et Les Hommes. Sciences Po Les Presses.
76. Popielarz PA. 1999. (In)voluntary association: a multilevel anaysis of gender segregation in voluntary organizations. Gender Soc 13:234–250. doi: 10.1177/089124399013002005
77. Poynder R. 2016. The OA Interviews: Kamila Markram, CEO and Co-Founder of Frontiers. http://poynder. blogspot.co.at/2016/02/the-oa-interviews-kamila-markram-ceo.html#more
78. Raymond J. 2013. Sexist attitudes: most of us are biased. Nature 495:33–34. doi: 10.1038/495033a, PMID: 23467152
79. Sainsbury D. 1994. Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage Publications.
80. Shen H. 2013. Mind the gender gap. Nature 495:22– 24. doi: 10.1038/495022a
81. Shrum W, Cheek NH, Hunter SM. 1988. Friendship in school: gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education 61:227–239. doi: 10.2307/2112441
82. Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women. 2002. Gender Mainstreaming: An Overview. New York: United Nations.
83. Squires J. 2008. Diversity mainstreaming: dépasser les approaches technocratiques et d’addiction des inégalités. Cahiers du Genre. 44:73–94.
84. Szell M, Thurner S. 2013. How women organize social networks different from men. Scientific Reports 3: 1214. doi: 10.1038/srep01214, PMID: 23393616
85. Tite L, Schroter S. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 61:9–12. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049817
86. Topaz CM, Sen S. 2016. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS One 11:e0161357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161357
87. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318:23–27. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
88. Verbrugge LM. 1977. The structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces 56:576–597. doi: 10.2307/2577741
89. Vinsonneau G. 1999. Inégalités Sociaux Et Procédés Identitaires. Paris: Armand Colin.
90. Ware M. 2008. Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community. Information Services and Use 28:109–112. doi: 10.3233/ISU-2008-0568
91. Wennerås C, Wold A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387:341–343. doi: 10.1038/387341a0
92. Woodward A. 2003. European gender mainstreaming: innovative policy or disappearing act? Review of Policy Research 20:65–88.
93. Woodward A. 2008. Est-il trop tard pour une approche de l’égalité? Le Point Sur La Situation À Bruxelles. Cahiers Du Genre. 44 95–116.
94. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686–688. doi: 10.1126/science.1193147
95. Xie Y, Shauman KA. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 63:847–870. doi: 10. 2307/2657505
96. Yava M, Yucel G. 2014. Impact of homophily on diffusion dynamics over social networks. Social Science Computer Review 32:354–372. doi: 10.1177/0894439313512464
97. Yeatman A. 1990. Bureaucrats, technocrats, femocrats: essays on the contemporary Australian state. Sidney: Allen & Unwin.
98. Zuckerman H. 1991. The careers of men and women scientists: A review of current research. The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community. p. 27-56.