Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?

Cássia‐Silva, Cibele; Rocha, Barbbara da Silva; Liévano‐Latorre, Luisa Fernanda; Sobreiro, Mariane B.; Diele‐Viegas, Luisa Maria

doi:10.7717/peerj.15186

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that the best solution is to make the entire review process blind to reviewers, editors, and authors: a triple-blind process (e.g. Cássia-Silva et al, 2023;Conklin & Singh, 2022). Although triple-blind review is used by a few academic journals, it has not yet been implemented by any ecology and evolution journals (Smith et al, 2023).…”

Section: Potential Reasons and Solutions For Editor Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind review

Srivastava,

Bernardino,

Marques

et al. 2024

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional Ecology conducted a randomised trial comparing single‐ and double‐blind peer review; a recent analysis of this data found substantial evidence for bias by reviewers. We show that this dataset can also be analysed for editor bias, after controlling for both reviewer bias and paper quality. Our analysis shows that editors tend to be more likely to invite high‐scoring manuscripts for revision or resubmission when the first author is a man from a country with a very high Human Development Index (HDI); first authors who were women or not from very high HDI countries were more likely to be rejected at this stage. We propose that journals consider a triple‐blind review process where neither editors nor reviewers know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers nor editors. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Potential Reasons and Solutions For Editor Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind review

Srivastava,

Bernardino,

Marques

et al. 2024

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications

Giannakakos,

Karanfilian,

Dimopoulos

et al. 2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of double-blind (DB) peer review on bias against authors when compared to single-blind (SB) peer review in scientific publications. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search of databases including Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science, without language or date restrictions, was conducted to identify original research studies comparing peer-review outcomes between DB and SB methods based on any of the following author characteristics: gender, race, geographic location, personal prestige, institutional prestige. Studies were ranked Level I, II, or III for quality of evidence based on a modified version of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence. Of 29 studies included, five level I studies, the highest quality evidence, showed that in SB peer review, the following author characteristics were associated with more positive outcomes: male gender, White race, location of the US or North America, well-published or known in their field, or affiliation with prestigious institutions. The evidence of whether DB peer review resulted in better outcomes for authors lacking these characteristics was more discordant, possibly due to lack of effective blinding or due to unblinded editor decisions. However, if bias reduction is defined as elimination of advantages afforded to only certain types of authors, DB peer review should be considered.

show abstract

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Cooke,

Young,

Peiman

et al. 2024

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.

show abstract

Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?

Cited by 4 publications

References 69 publications

Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind review

Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind review

Impact of author characteristics on outcomes of single- versus double-blind peer review: a systematic review of comparative studies in scientific abstracts and publications

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About