TY - JOUR
T1 - Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals
AU - Squazzinioni, Flaminio
AU - Bravo, Giangiacomo
AU - Farjam, Mike
AU - Marusic, Ana
AU - Mehmani, Bahar
AU - Willis, Michael
AU - Birukou, Aliaksandr
AU - Grimaldo, Francisco
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the TD1306 COST Action ?New Frontiers of Peer Review.? This work was also partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIU), the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI), and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under project RTI2018-095820-B-I00. A preliminary version of the manuscript received confidential comments by J. Marsh and A. Marengoni.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved;
PY - 2021/1/6
Y1 - 2021/1/6
N2 - Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.
AB - Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099263642&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1126/sciadv.abd0299
DO - 10.1126/sciadv.abd0299
M3 - Article
C2 - 33523967
SN - 2375-2548
VL - 7
JO - Science advances
JF - Science advances
IS - 2
ER -