Tag Archives: peer review
“Discrimination against members of under-represented groups in academic publishing leads to lower citation rates, fewer editorial-board positions and longer manuscript-review periods.”
“female authors spent about 12 more days than comparable men revising their manuscripts. Women were also more likely to go through more rounds of review — three or more, compared with one or two for men.”
“knowledge of authorship markedly affected the reviewers’ opinions of the paper… including the subject’s worthiness, the novelty of the information and whether the conclusions were supported.”
“Women encounter the most biases during CR [code review] participation ... While a person may self-assign to participate in a CR, most of the CR assignments are based on invitations. Therefore, women are less likely to be invited to participate than men."
“Just 10% of reviewers of a test paper recommended acceptance when the sole listed author was obscure—but 59% endorsed the same manuscript when it carried the name of a Nobel laureate.”
“although EPSRC awards a similar number of grants to men and women, they are not of equal value – women consistently apply for smaller grants. Since 2007, only 6% of applications for large grants worth more than £10 million were submitted by female PIs.”
“In other words, some women may choose not to target certain journals because they expect rejection.”
“overall, 5.6 percent of reviewers signed their comments. The results showed “a pretty strong gender divide,” with men almost twice as likely to sign their comments as women”
“disagreement btw reviewers was higher under the double-blind format, supporting the hypothesis that reviewers focused on the “costly”& ambiguous signal of quality embodied in submission contents& less on the “cheap”& agreed upon signal of quality embodied in authors’ identities”
On Double-Blind Peer Review: “Reviewers correctly identified the authors in 90.3% of cases and correctly stated the institutions in 86.8% of cases”
“The acceptance rate when reviewers knew or suspected that they knew the authors was 57/137 (41.6%) and 262/929 (28.2%) when reviewers did not.” http://www.ajnr.org/content/38/2/230
“MRC reviewers gave female applicants lower average scores than male applicants on all three evaluation parameters… Because these scores are multiplied with each other, female applicants received substantially lower final scores”
“the most productive group of female applicants, containing those with 100 total impact points or more, was the only group of women judged to be as competent as the least productive group of male applicants.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286750719_Nepotism_and_Sexism_in_Peer-Review
“Male scholars are assessed more highly by journal editors if it is revealed they work at a top-ranked university, but the same bias does not materialize for female scholars, study finds.”
“Women’s successes are perhaps attributed to luck or affirmative action policies, whereas men’s successes are attributed to their abilities and skills,” they said. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/06/18/male-scholars-are-assessed-more-highly-journal-editors-if-it-revealed-they-work-top
“Whether it is conscious or unconscious, this bias results from the pervasive knowledge of gender stereotypes and the social norms that are constantly being reinforced by the existence of these stereotypes”
“When you exclude studies on women,” Sugimoto says, “that also implies that you’re excluding studies by women, because women are more likely to be doing studies with female subjects.” https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/peer-reviewers-twice-as-likely-accept-research-conducted-on-men-than-on-women
OpenSexism 