PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Aarssen, Lonnie W.

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Budden, Amber E.
    ;
    Tregenza, Tom
    ;
    Aarssen, Lonnie W.
    ;
    Koricheva, Julia
    ;
    Leimu, Roosa
    Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.
  • Item type:Publication,
    To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review Open PDF 
    (2009)
    Borsuk, Robyn M.
    ;
    Aarssen, Lonnie W.
    ;
    Budden, Amber E.
    ;
    Koricheva, Julia
    ;
    Leimu, Roosa
    The peer review model is one of the most important tools used in science to assess the relative merit of research. We manipulated a published article to reflect one of the following four author designations: female, male, initial, and no name provided. This article was then reviewed by referees of both genders at various stages of scientific training. Name changing did not influence acceptance rates or quality ratings. Undergraduate referees were less critical than graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, independent of gender. However, female postdoctoral researchers were the most critical referees: Their rejection rates were the highest and quality ratings the lowest, regardless of the author name provided. Contrary to previous reports in the literature, there was no evidence of same-gender preferences. This study strongly suggests that female postgraduate biologists may apply different expectations to peer review.