PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2009Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Biology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in the refereeing process? Open PDF 
    (2002)
    Tregenza, Tom
    Scientists are measured by their publications. Yet anonymous peer review is far from transparent. Does bias lurk within the refereeing process? Investigating the outcomes of manuscript submissions suggests that the overall process is not sexist, but differences in acceptance rates across journals according to gender of the first author give grounds for caution. Manuscripts with more authors and by native English speakers are more successful; whether this is due to bias remains to be seen.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Participation of women in human biology, 1975-2001 Open PDF 
    (2003)
    Stinson, S.
    This study examines trends in women's participation in human biology as indicated by women's membership in the Human Biology Council/Association, first authorship of articles in the Human Biology Council/Association journal, and the extent to which women have been the subjects of research published in the organization's journal. Gender of members was determined from seven membership lists published in the organization's journal from 1977 to 1998, and the gender of the first authors was determined for 1,616 articles published in Human Biology or the American Journal of Human Biology from 1975 to 2001. Each journal article was also coded as to the first author's country and whether the subjects of the research were only females, only males, or both males and females. From the late 1970s to the late 1990s, the percent of women members of the Human Biology Council/Association increased from under 25% to over 40%. Women were the first authors of fewer than 20% of articles in the organization's journal in the late 1970s; by the late 1990s over 30% of articles had a female first author. The clearest increase in female authorship through time is seen for articles with a first author from the U.S. Even when women were not well represented as human biologists, a substantial proportion of human biology research published in the organization's journal dealt with females, and over the last 15 years there have been more research articles having only females as research subjects than articles having only males as research subjects. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
  • 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.