Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.

With peer review under closer scrutiny than ever before, research is needed toinvestigate not only what incentives encourage researchers to review manuscripts, but also what reasons prevent them from reviewing. We analysed responses to reviewer invitations sent by one journal in March to July 2015. The data showed that the overwhelming reason why reviewers decline is because they are unavailable to do so. Although the finding may not be surprising and confirms the findings of earlier research, the study illustrates how a journal can analyse and draw conclusions from its own reviewer invitation data as a first step to improving the invitation acceptance rates.

eer review is the defining feature of scholarly communication. In a 2018 survey of more than 11,000 researchers, 98% said that they considered peer review important or extremely important for ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly communication 1. Indeed, now that the Internet and social media have assumed journals' original role of dissemination, a journal's main function is curation. Both the public and the scientific community trust peer review to uphold shared values of rigour, ethics, originality and analysis by improving publications and filtering out weak or errant ones. Scholarly communities rely on peer review to establish common knowledge and credit. Despite decades of calls for study, research on peer review is scarce 2. Current investigations are fragmented, with few connections and limited knowledge-sharing, as manifested by how sparsely these researchers cite each other's papers 3. The most rigorous work is generally restricted to one or a few journals per study, often in the same field. There is a lack of systematic research on how journals manage the process (such as selecting, instructing and rewarding reviewers, managing conflicting reviews, or publishing reviewers' reports); on how to define the quality and utility of individual reviews; and on how to assess peer review (such as who

We conducted a literature review of best practice in peer review. Following this research, we identified five principles for better peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. For each of these principles, we have developed a set of recommendations to improve peer review standards. In this article, we describe the role of peer review and how our five principles support that goal. This article is intended to continue the conversation about improving peer review standards and provide guidance to journal teams looking to improve their standards. It is accompanied by a detailed checklist, which could be used by journal teams to assess their current peer review standards.

Aim: To define a set of standards for better peer review. Method: We set out the expectations of five groups of stakeholders in the peer review process: authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and the general public. We then solicited case studies from people involved in peer review, to capture practical insights into how journal teams address the essential areas of integrity, ethics, fairness, usefulness and timeliness. Results: We received 40 case studies from stakeholders of journals published by Wiley in a range of subject areas from around the globe. The case studies identified areas of existing best practices and highlighted problems that might require better practices. Conclusion: We used this information to define essential areas of practice for peer review and to provide recommendations in each area, synthesizing these into a practical checklist to help journal teams improve their practices.