To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Borsuk, R.M.; Aarssen, Lonnie W.; Budden, Amber E.; Koricheva, Julia; Leimu, Roosa; Tregenza, Tom; Lortie, Christopher J.

doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.10

Cited by 79 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, this behavior was most closely associated with major revisions, which suggests that reviewer self-citing serves a clarifying purpose, allowing reviewers to highlight inaccuracies in the representation of their work in the manuscript under review. No difference was found between male and female reviewers in regards to reviewer self-citations (RQ7), despite differences in male and female reviewing found in other studies of peer review (e.g., Wing Borsuk et al 2009;Lane and Linden 2009;Jayasinghe et al 2003). Furthermore, this confirms previous studies that have shown no difference in male and female rates of self-citation in journal articles (e.g., Symonds et al 2006;Borrego et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review

Sugimoto

Cronin

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests for evidence of gaming and attention mongering-here termed ego bias-in the scholarly peer review process. We explore the extent to which authors cite the target journal and its editor and also the relationship between targeted references and editorial decisions. We examine referee reports for the presence and type of references and determine the extent to which reviewers cite their own work in their reports. Our results are based on a sample of 442 manuscripts and 927 referee reports submitted to the Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology. We find little evidence that editors, authors or reviewers use the peer review process as an opportunity to play citation games.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review

Sugimoto

Cronin

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Budden and her colleagues published several analyses of gender bias in manuscript reviewing by undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs, and journal reviewers (6,(17)(18)(19). In one, they analyzed journal acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted by women to Behavioral Ecology after it began blind peer review (18).…”

Section: Discrimination Against Women In Journal Reviewingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23, p. 350). In another study by Budden and her colleagues (17), 989 raters (undergraduates to postdocs) were given an identical manuscript with either no name, author's first initial only, a male name, or a female name. This study also found no sex discrimination.…”

Section: Discrimination Against Women In Journal Reviewingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Ceci

Williams

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

871

695

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.women in science | gender bias | child penalty | peer review S ince 1970, women have made dramatic gains in science. Today, half of all MD degrees and 52% of PhDs in life sciences are awarded to women, as are 57% of PhDs in social sciences, 71% of PhDs to psychologists, and 77% of DVMs to veterinarians.* Forty years ago, women's presence in most of these fields was several orders of magnitude less; e.g., in 1970 only 13% of PhDs in life sciences went to women (1). In the most mathintensive fields, however, women's growth has been less pronounced (2-4). Among the top 100 US universities, only 8.8-15.8% of tenure-track positions in many math-intensive fields (combined across ranks) are held by women, and female full professors number ≤10%. (SI Text, S1)These figures reveal a problem, but what is its cause? Here, we consider one of the most common alleged causes-discrimination against women in the domains of: (i) manuscript reviewing, (ii) grant funding, and (iii) interviewing/hiring. We reprise the evidence for each and describe counterevidence. We conclude that past initiatives to combat discrimination against women in science appear to have been highly successful. Women's current underrepresentation in math-intensive fields is not caused by discrimin...

show abstract

“…50 In the same issue, however, Budden et al respond to Webb's critique, reasserting the validity of their conclusion that doubleblind reviews would foster gender equity for women. 51 Borsuk et al, in a study in which they contrived the byline of a published article to reflect either female, male, or no gender 52 and distributed it to undergraduate, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty to assess any differences in their rejection rates. They found no evidence for differences based on author gender or evidence for same-gender preferences.…”

Section: Atkinson Notes That Many Authors Will 'Peddle Their Work' Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

Souder

2011

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges.

show abstract

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

Cited by 79 publications

References 21 publications

Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review

Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About