Peer Review and Gender Bias: A Study on 145 Scholarly Journals

Overview

Journal Sci Adv

Specialties Biology
Science

Date 2021 Feb 1

PMID 33523967

Citations 44

Authors

Flaminio Squazzoni

Giangiacomo Bravo

Mike Farjam

Ana Marusic

Bahar Mehmani

Michael Willis

Aliaksandr Birukou

Pierpaolo Dondio

Francisco Grimaldo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.

Aczel B, Barwich A, Diekman A, Fishbach A, Goldstone R, Gomez P Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(5):e2401232121.

PMID: 39869808 PMC: 11804526. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401232121.

Black Women in Medical Education Publishing: Bibliometric and Testimonio Accounts Using Intersectionality Methodology.

Seide W, Maggio L, Artino Jr A, Leroux T, Konopasky A J Gen Intern Med. 2024; 40(1):217-225.

PMID: 39441491 PMC: 11780048. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-09117-7.

Machine learning misclassification networks reveal a citation advantage of interdisciplinary publications only in high-impact journals.

Lyutov A, Uygun Y, Hutt M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):21906.

PMID: 39300204 PMC: 11412973. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-72364-5.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

Drozdz J, Ladomery M Br J Biomed Sci. 2024; 81:12054.

PMID: 38952614 PMC: 11215012. DOI: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054.

How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.

Waltman L, Kaltenbrunner W, Pinfield S, Woods H Learn Publ. 2024; 36(3):334-347.

PMID: 38504796 PMC: 10946616. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1544.

References

Edwards H, Schroeder J, Dugdale H . Correction: Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5):e0217251. PMC: 6530896. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217251. View

Campbell L, Mehtani S, Dozier M, Rinehart J . Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e79147. PMC: 3813606. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079147. View

Squazzoni F, Ahrweiler P, Barros T, Bianchi F, Birukou A, Blom H . Unlock ways to share data on peer review. Nature. 2020; 578(7796):512-514. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00500-y. View

Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser C . The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16(4):e2004956. PMC: 5908072. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956. View

Ceci S, Williams W . Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(8):3157-62. PMC: 3044353. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108. View

West J, Jacquet J, King M, Correll S, Bergstrom C . The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e66212. PMC: 3718784. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066212. View

Fox C, Paine C . Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol. 2019; 9(6):3599-3619. PMC: 6434606. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4993. View

Bravo G, Grimaldo F, Lopez-Inesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F . The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):322. PMC: 6338763. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2. View

Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto C . Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504(7479):211-3. DOI: 10.1038/504211a. View

10.

Berenbaum M . Speaking of gender bias. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(17):8086-8088. PMC: 6486706. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1904750116. View

11.

Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin W . Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(48):12708-12713. PMC: 5715744. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. View

12.

Jagsi R, Guancial E, Cooper Worobey C, Henault L, Chang Y, Starr R . The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(3):281-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa053910. View

13.

Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D . Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife. 2017; 6. PMC: 5360442. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.21718. View

14.

Santamaria L, Mihaljevic H . Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2021; 4:e156. PMC: 7924484. DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.156. View

15.

Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, Marusic A . Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data. Nature. 2017; 546(7658):352. DOI: 10.1038/546352a. View

16.

van den Besselaar P, Sandstrom U . Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8):e0183301. PMC: 5571952. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183301. View

17.

Huang J, Gates A, Sinatra R, Barabasi A . Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(9):4609-4616. PMC: 7060730. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117. View

18.

Lerback J, Hanson B . Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature. 2017; 541(7638):455-457. DOI: 10.1038/541455a. View

19.

Leslie S, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E . Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science. 2015; 347(6219):262-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261375. View

20.

Nielsen M, Bloch C, Schiebinger L . Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 2(10):726-734. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0433-1. View