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.

No abstract

The present paper describes the design and evaluation of a videogame developed to support math education and overcome math anxiety (MA) at the primary school level. The game narrative is based on the history of math. The player travels back on time and meets on-player characters such as Pythagoras of Samos and Ada Lovelace, learning about how math was used during their times. The player is invited to play a minigame where the concepts shared by the characters are used as a strategy to win. The game’s evaluation consisted of a pre and post-testing study that measured students’ math performance and MA levels. The experiment also included a group interview to collect students’ perceptions about the game. The experiment lasted five weeks, and 88 students from three primary schools played the game on weekly sessions 45-60 minutes long. Statistical analysis suggested the game significantly improves students’ math performance. However, the results indicated that female students from one of the classrooms had higher MA levels after playing the game. In addition, qualitative data shows students had a high level of engagement with the gameplay.

This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel data set derived from the Royal Society's archives and covering 1865-1965, that is, the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society's editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the

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