PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 1999Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Factors in Reviewer Recommendations for Manuscript Publication Open PDF 
    (1990)
    Lloyd, Margaret E.
    This study investigated whether the gender of manuscript authors affected reviewers' editorial decisions. Female and male reviewers for five behavioral journals were asked to evaluate identical manuscripts according to their usual criteria. Half the manuscripts were supposedly written by men and half by women. Male reviewers did not evaluate male- and female-authored manuscripts differently. Female reviewers accepted significantly more female-authored (62%) than male-authored (10%) manuscripts. Female-authored manuscripts were accepted significantly more often by female (62%) than by male (21%) reviewers. Information unrelated to the quality of the manuscript appears to have influenced reviewers' decisions. Implications for the journal review process are discussed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? Open PDF 
    (1994)
    Gilbert, Julie R.
    ;
    Williams, Elaine S.
    ;
    Lundberg, George D.
    Objective.—To assess whether manuscripts received by JAMA in 1991 possessed differing peer review and manuscript processing characteristics, or had a variable chance of acceptance, associated with the gender of the participants in the peer review process.Design.—Retrospective cohort study of 1851 research articles.Setting.—JAMA editorial office.Participants.—Eight male and five female JAMA editors, 2452 male and 930 female reviewers, and 1698 male and 462 female authors.Main Outcome Measure.—Statistically significant gender bias.Results.—Female editors were assigned manuscripts from female corresponding authors more often than were male editors (P<.001). Female editors used more reviewers per manuscript if sent for other review. Male reviewers assisted male editors more often than female editors, and male reviewers took longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts (median, 25 vs 22 days). Content reviewer recommendations were independent of corresponding author and review gender, while male statistical reviewers recommended the highest and lowest categories more frequently than did female statistical reviewers (P<.001). Manuscripts handled by female editors were rejected summarily at higher rates (P<.001). Articles submitted to JAMA in 1991 were not accepted at significantly different rates based on the gender of the corresponding author or the assigned editor (P>.4).Conclusions.—Gender differences exist in editor and reviewer characteristics at JAMA with no apparent effect on the final outcome of the peer review process or acceptance for publication.(JAMA. 1994;272:139-142)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example Open PDF 
    (1998)
    Dickersin, K.
    ;
    Fredman, L.
    ;
    Flegal, K. M.
    ;
    Scott, J. D.
    ;
    Crawley, B.
    CONTEXT: Editors, authors, and reviewers are influential in shaping science. The careers of women in public health have received less scrutiny than those of women in medicine and other branches of science. The performance of women as editors, authors, and reviewers in epidemiology has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes over time in the representation of women at the editorial level in US epidemiology journals compared with the proportion of women authors and reviewers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of 4 US epidemiology journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, Annals of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (formerly the Journal of Chronic Diseases), for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1994. SUBJECTS: Editors, authors, and reviewers for the selected years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sex of editors, authors, and reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 2415 reports associated with 8005 authors. One of 7 editors in chief was a woman, a position she shared with a man. For all journals, the proportion of editors who were women ranged from 5 (6.5%) of 77 in 1982 to 42 (16.3%) of 258 in 1994. Over all journals and all years, women comprised a higher proportion of authors (28.7% [2225/7743]) compared with reviewers (26.7% [796/2982]) or editors (12.8% [89/696]). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer women in public health hold editorial positions than are authors and reviewers. The reasons for this important discrepancy, including the possibility of a selection bias favoring men, should be further investigated.