Author׳s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment

Krawczyk, Michał; Smyk, Magdalena

doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.02.017

Cited by 66 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Knobloch‐Westerwick, Glynn & Huge ; Krawczyk & Smyk ), but a few find evidence that works authored by women are rated lower. For example, students rated conference abstracts with male authors to be of greater scientific quality (Knobloch‐Westerwick, Glynn & Huge ), and rated economics papers authored by men as more publishable (Krawczyk & Smyk ; though economics as a field may be more male‐biased than the biological sciences, van Arensbergen, van der Weijden & van den Besselaar ). Overall, though gender biases are clearly evident in many aspects of academic research and careers (e.g., recruitment of editors, symposium participation invitations, evaluation of academic job applicants; Moss‐Racusin et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) but primarily in the health sciences and other fields (Lane & Linden ; Heckenberg & Druml ; Walker et al . for manuscript review; Dickson ; Grant, Burden & Breen ; Friesen ; Ley & Hamilton ; Leemann & Stutz ; Sandström & Hällsten ; Marsh, Jayasinghe & Bond , ; Mutz, Bornmann & Daniel for grant reviews), generally find that peer review is gender neutral, though there are some exceptions (e.g., Knobloch‐Westerwick, Glynn & Huge ; Krawczyk & Smyk ). However, most manipulative studies use student populations as their raters, and the majority of analyses of peer review done by professional researchers look at grant applications; few have looked at manuscript submissions to academic journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, few subsequent studies have found gender bias in peer review. Controlled experiments in the life sciences (Borsuk et al 2009) or other fields (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn & Huge 2013), and correlational studies of editorial (or granting) decisions or reviewer ratings in the life sciences (Tregenza 2002;Primack et al 2009) but primarily in the health sciences and other fields (Lane & Linden 2009;Heckenberg & Druml 2010;Walker et al 2015 for manuscript review;Dickson 1997;Grant, Burden & Breen 1997;Friesen 1998;Ley & Hamilton 2008;Leemann & Stutz 2008;Sandstr€ om & H€ allsten 2008;Marsh, Jayasinghe & Bond 2008, 2011Mutz, Bornmann & Daniel 2015 for grant reviews), generally find that peer review is gender neutral, though there are some exceptions (e.g., Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn & Huge 2013;Krawczyk & Smyk 2014). However, most manipulative studies use student populations as their raters, and the majority of analyses of peer review done by professional researchers look at grant applications; few have looked at manuscript submissions to academic journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014. Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi‐authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender‐neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the frequency and degree to which peer review of scholarly manuscripts and grant proposals discriminates against women remains a subject of significant debate. Some experimental studies, in which author genders are manipulated (e.g., investigators manipulate the gender of names on author bylines), have found that papers with male-sounding author names are rated more highly than those with female-sounding names (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, & Huge, 2013;Krawczyk & Smyk, 2016), though there are exceptions (Borsuk, Budden, Leimu, Aarssen, & Lortie, 2009). In contrast, correlational studies of manuscript or grant review commonly find it to be gender neutral (e.g., no discrepancy in outcomes between papers with male vs. female authors; Buckley, Sciligo, Adair, Case, & Monks, 2014;Edwards, Schroeder, & Dugdale, 2018;Fox, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, 2016;Heckenberg & Druml, 2010;Lane & Linden, 2009;Primack, Ellwood, Miller-Rushing, Marrs, & Mulligan, 2009 for manuscript review; Cañibano, Otamendi, & Andújar, 2009;Leemann & Stutz, 2008;Ley & Hamilton, 2008;Marsh, Jayasinghe, & Bond, 2008;Marsh, Jayasinghe, & Bond, 2011;Mutz, Bornmann, & Daniel, 2015;Reinhart, 2009;Sandström & Hällsten, 2008, and references therein, for grant reviews), though there are exceptions in which men (Kaatz et al, 2016;Ledin, Bornmann, Gannon, & Wallon, 2007;Murray et al, 2018;Walker, Barros, Conejo, Neumann, & Telefont, 2015) or women (Lerback & Hanson, 2017) have higher success rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

Fox

Paine

2019

Ecology and Evolution

147

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer‐review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer‐review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer‐review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer‐review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer‐review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.

show abstract

“…To name a few, female academics are less likely to receive grant funding 7 , less likely to win prizes 8 , more likely to be seen as less competent than males 9 , and more likely to have their gender misattributed in publications 10 . They also often end up taking on more teaching and administrative duties than their male colleagues; this work is rarely appropriately recognised by promotion or hiring boards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Energizing equality

2017

Nat Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Author׳s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment

Cited by 66 publications

References 39 publications

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

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

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

Energizing equality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About