scholarly journals Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 13636-13649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Fox ◽  
Meghan A. Duffy ◽  
Daphne J. Fairbairn ◽  
Jennifer A. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
And Gender

scholarly journals No evidence of any systematic bias against manuscripts by women in the peer review process of 145 scholarly journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flaminio Squazzoni ◽  
Giangiacomo Bravo ◽  
Pierpaolo Dondio ◽  
Mike Farjam ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Selection Of

This article examines gender bias in peer review with complete data on 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. In line with previous research, we found that editors were sensitive to gender homophily in that they tended to match authors and referee by gender systematically. Results showed that in general manuscripts written by women as solo authors or co-authored by women are treated even more favorably by referees and editors. This is especially so in biomedicine and health journals, whereas women were treated relatively less favorably in social science & humanities journals, i.e., the field in which the ratio of female authors was the highest in our sample. Although with some caveat, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes in scholarly journals do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, considering the complex social nature of gender prejudices, journals should increase gender diversity among reviewers and editors as a means of correcting signals potentially biasing the perceptions of authors and referees.

An Examination of Gender Differences in the American Fisheries Society Peer-Review Process

Fisheries ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 442-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Handley ◽  
Cynthia M. Frantz ◽  
Patrick M. Kocovsky ◽  
Dennis R. DeVries ◽  
Steven J. Cooke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

scholarly journals Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 270-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Fox ◽  
C. Sean Burns ◽  
Anna D. Muncy ◽  
Jennifer A. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

scholarly journals Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Academic Reputation ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Language And Education

Due to their commitment to better publishing standards and desire to improve their journals’ academic reputation, editorial boards, editors, and editorial teams seek to refine submissions they receive. Though, the peer review process serves as a filtering and assessment system, it is believed to greatly contribute to better quality of scholarly journals. Based on the analysis of the peer review internationally, the JLE editors focus on the peer review in the Journal of Language and Education, sharing their experience with the JLE potential authors. The editorial contains some reflections on the efficacy of peer review in the JLE. Potential authors may find some tips as to how to interact with recommendations and criticism on part of their peer reviewers and to make their voices heard.

Referees’ Attitudes toward Open Peer Review and Electronic Transmission of Papers

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 521-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Melero ◽  
F. López-Santoveña
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Food Science ◽  
Open Review ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Web

A survey was mailed to 293 referees from the review board of Food Science and Technology International with the following personal characteristics: ages: 35–45 (35%), 45–55 (37%), and 55–65 (27%); 93% PhD graduates; 69% male, 98% researchers, 82% teachers too, 85% review for other journals as well to assess reviewers’ attitudes or preferences in favor of or against masking their identity, and toward the electronic transmission of papers for review. The reviewers were mainly from Europe, North America, and South America. The questionnaire was anonymous and asked if respondents were in favor of an open review or masking of the reviewers, and if they agreed with the electronic transmission of the papers for their review (both from the point of view of author and reviewer). The response rate was 35% (103 respondents). The consistency between the answers as being authors or reviewers when asked by the peer review process was significant ( P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of masking reviewers, and 17% completely favored unblinded review. The consistency between the answers for paper transmission was significant ( P<0.001) without significant differences in terms of gender or age. Seventy-five percent were in favor of electronic transmission, 25% were against it. There was a significant association between the answers in favor of or against e-transmission and the age either as reviewers ( P=0.009) or as authors ( P= 0.031). The other associations between the system of review and gender or age were not significant. There was a preference among the participants for masking the reviewers, and a tendency to use the Web as the transmission medium because it is considered faster, easier, simpler, and more economic.

Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert W. Marsh ◽  
Upali W. Jayasinghe ◽  
Nigel W. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grant Applications

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document