Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

Grod, Olyana N; Budden, Amber E.; Tregenza, Tom; Koricheva, Julia; Leimu, Roosa; Aarssen, Lonnie W.; Lortie, Christopher J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003202

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, female editors have less publishing experience than their male counterparts (see Table 1), although the former have held editorial appointments for similar lengths of time. The same trend was seen among reviewers in ecology and evolution (Grod et al . 2008), suggesting that the available pool of female scientists qualified for editor positions is smaller than that for males.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

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

Grod

Lortie

Budden

2009

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An online survey of ecology and evolution editors was conducted to assess the characteristics of journal editors and describe manuscript‐handling practices. A total of 450 respondents – representing 155 ecology and evolution journals – participated. The following patterns were detected: (1) there are more male than female editors; (2) the greater the number of manuscripts handled per year by editors, the lower the proportion are rejected without review; and (3) previous review time, scientific status, and seniority of reviewers are factors that editors consider when selecting a reviewer. This research highlights the potential importance of editor characteristics in the peer‐review process; we suggest that increased transparency promotes both recognition of the editor population and more equitable reviewing practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

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

Grod

Lortie

Budden

2009

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, female reviewers may spend more time reviewing each particular manuscript (Grod et al . ) and possibly write longer and/or more thoughtful reviews (Wing et al . ; but see Gilbert et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Bornmann & Daniel ; Grod et al . ; Isenberg, Sanchez & Zafran ; Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto ; Walker et al . ; note: Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto conclude that ‘female reviewers gave lower reviews than male reviewers’ in their study but clearly state in their Results that this result is not statistically significant).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…We would certainly not be expensive to the industry for our time. A payment of $100 per paper is a nominal amount particularly because most referees report that it can take up to 7-10 hours to review a manuscript (Grod et al 2008). So, for as little as $10 per hour, a tipping point is reached that might cause us to put aside other tasks and take on a review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%