Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution

Grod, Olyana N; Lortie, Christopher J.; Budden, Amber E.

doi:10.1890/090048

Cited by 13 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While individual author biases can be somewhat moderated by analysing texts from multiple authors and sources, these biases may still exist. Editors can exert significant influence over which material is published and therefore editorial bias also exists in many publications, including scientific peer-reviewed literature (Grod et al 2010). While SportDiving was chosen in part for the consistency of its editorial staff (the editors have been the same over the last 50 years), editor bias may still influence articles that are published.…”

Section: Limitations and Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From hunters to nature observers: a record of 53 years of diver attitudes towards sharks and rays and marine protected areas

Whatmough

Putten

Chin

2011

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Human values, perceptions, attitudes and interactions with the natural environment have been found to change over time, with social and economic information used to inform management decisions and actions. Content analysis is applied here to a 53-year long collection of the popular dive magazine, SportDiving, to identify recreational divers' experiences with regard to sharks and rays, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and marine protected areas (MPAs). This analysis suggests there has been a diversification of diver activities with the emergence of passive-observational activities such as SCUBA diving. Attitudes towards sharks and rays have changed significantly, with recreational divers changing from a group that could be described as adventure-seeking hunters to a group that can be described as nature-appreciating observers, suggesting an increase in conservation awareness. The GBR continues to be a highly regarded dive destination, with divers perceiving positive effects of protection within MPAs. However, declines in the abundance of large fish and sharks and rays were occasionally reported throughout the 53 year period. Collectively, these types of data can show changes in resource-use patterns, perceptions and attitudes and provide information that supplements scientific monitoring data. These data may be valuable where scientific data is scarce, historical records difficult to obtain, and where attitudinal change can significantly affect future resource use.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From hunters to nature observers: a record of 53 years of diver attitudes towards sharks and rays and marine protected areas

Whatmough

Putten

Chin

2011

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…), which in turn might influence peer review outcomes. In one survey of ecology journal editors, male editors considered reviewer status more important than did female editors (Grod, Lortie & Budden ), possibly reflecting different experiences with male‐dominated science or different professional networks (Lloyd ; Grod et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over‐selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early‐career male and female editors but differed a lot between late‐career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

show abstract

“…Editors should play a key role in the peer review process, increasing the value of scientific studies by enabling publication of those deemed to be of merit. Accordingly, editors must be objective, trustworthy, and ethical, and should always have the best interests of the journal and its readership in mind (Grod et al 2010). We detected a behavior in editors that compromises these qualities: the unjustified editorial rejection.…”

Section: Representative Examples Of the Poor Predictive Ability Of Somentioning

confidence: 99%

Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?

Farji‐Brener

Kitzberger

2014

Bulletin Ecologic Soc America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

From hunters to nature observers: a record of 53 years of diver attitudes towards sharks and rays and marine protected areas

From hunters to nature observers: a record of 53 years of diver attitudes towards sharks and rays and marine protected areas

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Rejecting Editorial Rejections Revisited: Are Editors of Ecological Journals Good Oracles?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About