Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

Despite 50% of biology Ph.D. graduates being women, the number of women that advance in academia decreases at each level (e.g., from graduate to postdoctorate to tenure track). Recently, scientific societies and publishers have begun examining internal submissions data to evaluate representation and evaluation of women in their peer review processes; however, representation and attitudes differ by scientific field, and to date, no studies have investigated academic publishing in the field of microbiology. Using manuscripts submitted between January 2012 and August 2018 to the 15 journals published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), we describe the representation of women at ASM journals and the outcomes of their manuscripts. Senior women authors at ASM journals were underrepresented compared to global and society estimates of microbiology researchers. Additionally, manuscripts submitted by corresponding authors that were women received more negative outcomes than those submitted by men. These negative outcomes were somewhat mediated by whether or not the corresponding author was based in the United States and by the type of institution for United States-based authors. Nonetheless, the pattern for women corresponding authors to receive more negative outcomes on their submitted manuscripts held. We conclude with suggestions to improve the representation of women and decrease structural penalties against women. IMPORTANCE Barriers in science and academia have prevented women from becoming researchers and experts that are viewed as equivalent to their colleagues who are men. We evaluated the participation and success of women researchers at ASM journals to better understand their success in the field of microbiology. We found that women are underrepresented as expert scientists at ASM journals. This is, in part, due to a combination of both low submissions from senior women authors and more negative outcomes on submitted manuscripts for women compared to men.

Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

“…However, decisions on whom to cite may also reflect exclusionary scientific networks that coalesce at scholarly meetings and conferences that, despite recent efforts in improving diversity among participants [26][27][28], primarily cater to established white men from privileged universities [28][29][30][31]. In addition, in comparison to men, women receive more manuscript rejections [32][33][34], are less likely to be published in prestigious journals (which typically have high citation rates) [35], and are less likely to be invited to write commentaries [36]. These issues may stem from women's scholarly writing being held to a higher standard than men's by editors and peer reviewers, placing penalties on women's productivity, with excessive time spent reworking old research at the cost of conducting new research [37].…”

Volcanologists - Who are we and where are we going?

“…However, explicit or unconscious bias biases against the authors, the reviewers, or the editor may play a part in these decisions (e.g. Fox and Paine, 2019;Hagan et al, 2020;Helmer et al, 2017;Poulson-Ellestad et al, 2020). One editor wrote:…”

mikropml: User-Friendly R Package for Supervised Machine Learning Pipelines

“…mikropml can be used as a starting point in the application of ML to datasets from many different fields. It has already been applied to microbiome data to categorize patients with colorectal cancer ( Topçuoğlu et al, 2020 ), to identify differences in genomic and clinical features associated with bacterial infections ( Lapp et al, 2020 ), and to predict gender-based biases in academic publishing ( Hagan et al, 2020 ).…”