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.

scholarly journals Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. eabd0299
Author(s):  
Flaminio Squazzoni ◽  
Giangiacomo Bravo ◽  
Mike Farjam ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
Bahar Mehmani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Editorial Decisions ◽  
Selection Of

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.

How Gendered Is the Peer-Review Process? A Mixed-Design Analysis of Reviewer Feedback

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Thomas König ◽  
Guido Ropers
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Mixed Design ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
American Political Science

ABSTRACT A fair peer-review process is essential for the integrity of a discipline’s scholarly standards. However, underrepresentation of scholarly groups casts doubt on fairness, which currently is raising concerns about a gender bias in the peer-review process of premier scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review (APSR). This study examines gender differences in APSR reviewing during the period 2007–2020. Our explorative analysis suggests that male reviewers privilege male authors and female reviewers privilege female authors, whereas manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers indicate less gender bias. Using within-manuscript variation to address confounding effects, we then show that manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers receive a more positive evaluation by female reviewers in terms of recommendation and sentiment, but they experience a marginally longer duration. Because these effects are not specific for type of authorship, we recommend that invitations to review should reflect mixed compositions of peers, which also may avoid overburdening an underrepresented group with review workload.

Glycogen: an overview of possible regulatory roles of the proteins associated with the granuleThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 14th International Biochemistry of Exercise Conference – Muscles as Molecular and Metabolic Machines, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry E. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Muscle Glycogen ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Glycogen Granule ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Dynamic Regulation ◽  
Considerable Evidence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Selection Of

While scientists have routinely measured muscle glycogen in many metabolic situations for over 4 decades, there is surprisingly little known regarding its regulation. In the past decade, considerable evidence has illustrated that the carbohydrate stores in muscle are not homogeneous, and it is very likely that metabolic pools exist or that each granule has independent regulation. The fundamental aspects appear to be associated with a complex set of proteins that associate with both the granule and each other in a dynamic fashion. Some of the proteins are enzymes and others play scaffolding roles. A number of the proteins can translocate, depending on the metabolic stimulus. These various processes appear to be the mechanisms that give the glycogen granule precise yet dynamic regulation. This may also allow the stores to serve as an important metabolic regulator of other metabolic events.

scholarly journals On peer reviewing: how to nourish an author’s mind and win a JLDHE editor’s heart

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Loughlin ◽  
Alicja Syska ◽  
Gita Sedghi ◽  
Christina Howell-Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Good Publication ◽  
Seminar Series ◽  
Learning Development

Editors and publishers of scholarly journals rarely agree on what makes for a good publication; they do, however, agree on the need for a robust peer review process as a crucial means to judge the merits of potential publications. While fraught with issues and inefficiencies, a critical and supportive peer review is not only what editors rely on when assessing scholarship presented for publication but also what authors hope for in order to improve their work. Understanding how peer review may best serve all parties involved: authors, editors, and reviewers, is thus at the heart of this article. The analysis offered here is based on a session the Journal for Learning Development in Higher Education editors gave at the 2020 LD@3 seminar series, entitled ‘The Art of Reviewing’. It explores the different aspects of the peer review process while formulating recommendations regarding best practices and outlining JLDHE initiatives for supporting reviewers’ vital work.

IMPROVING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Oluwole Gbolagunte Ajao ◽  
Adekola Alao
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Administrative Positions ◽  
Selection Of

SUMMARY: The peer review process has been regarded as an essential part of accepting or rejecting a paper for publication since 1752 when the process was started by The Royal Society of London in the publication entitled “Philosophical Transactions”. In developing countries, one of the primary reasons for submitting pieces for publication is to support promotion in universities. In fact, the argument can be made that the only reason for publishing in developing countries is for faculty promotion. Despite the peer review process being standard practice for scientic journals, many of the research publications on COVID-19 were not subjected to the peer review system. In fact, numerous publications were pre-prints and papers shared by researchers online which were not peer reviewed, yet they were accepted and published by scientic journals in developing nations. When authors start to lose condence in the peer review process of a journal, they are not likely to submit their research work to such journals and this can lead to a diminished impact and reputation of such journals. Additionally, the selection of the assessors by the Editor-in -Chief is usually from the academic space of the editor and from the colleagues of the editor that usually share the editor's view. Contrary to what some editors in the developing countries believe, medical and academic administrative positions do not necessarily result in expertise in the peer review process. An editor can easily identify a poor assessment of an article, from the vitriolic feed-back of the author to the editor about an assessor when a paper is not recommended for publication. This paper provides evidence of and outlines the possible reasons that the peer review process is substandard in developing countries.

scholarly journals Analytical Chemistry and Innovative Applications

Analytica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-37
Author(s):  
Marcello Locatelli
Keyword(s):  
Applied Sciences ◽  
Analytical Chemistry ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Selection Of

In this issue of the Journal “Analytica”, there is a selection of accepted articles, after peer-review process, in which the great importance that Analytical Chemistry plays in the field of Applied Sciences and the vastness of the implications in the various sectors are highlighted [...]

In vitro chromatin self-association and its relevance to genome architectureThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 27th International West Coast Chromatin and Chromosome Conference, and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.

2006 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Lu ◽  
Joshua M. Klonoski ◽  
Michael G. Resch ◽  
Jeffrey C. Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
West Coast ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Eukaryotic Nucleus ◽  
Self Association ◽  
Selection Of

Chromatin in a eukaryotic nucleus is condensed through 3 hierarchies: primary, secondary, and tertiary chromatin structures. In vitro, when induced with cations, chromatin can self-associate and form large oligomers. This self-association process has been proposed to mimic processes involved in the assembly and maintenance of tertiary chromatin structures in vivo. In this article, we review 30 years of studies of chromatin self-association, with an emphasis on the evidence suggesting that this in vitro process is physiologically relevant.

scholarly journals A look inside the black box of scientific publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Cavalleri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Process Work

Publishing the results of one’s research is an integral part of the scientific process, yet scholarly journals are often seen as black boxes by researchers. What happens to a paper after it is submitted? Who is deciding on its fate? What is the role of the journal editor and the editorial office? How does the peer-review process work, and are its core principles still relevant in today’s changing publishing landscape? In this talk I will discuss these questions in an attempt to de-mystify the peer review process from an editor’s perspective, and cover the whats, the hows and the whys of peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document