PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2009Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • 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,
    Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology Open PDF 
    (2005)
    Kliewer, Mark A.
    ;
    Freed, Kelly S.
    ;
    DeLong, David M.
    ;
    Pickhardt, Perry J.
    ;
    Provenzale, James M.
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for each reviewer. We also sent a questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer. The demographic profiles were correlated with the average quality score for each reviewer. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and analysis of variance modeling. Reviewer quality scores were also correlated with the scoring of individual reviews and ultimate disposition of 196 manuscripts sent to the AJR during the same period. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 821 reviewers (83.0%), for whom quality scores were available for 714 (87.0%). Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (p = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (p = 0.72), years of reviewing (p = 0.26), academic rank (p = 0.10), or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (p = 0.40). The quality score of the reviewers showed no variation by subspecialty (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The highest-rated AJR reviewers tended to be young and from academic institutions. The quality of peer review did not correlate with the sex, academic rank, or subspecialty of the reviewer.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Open PDF 
    (2003)
    Del Carmen Davo, M.
    ;
    Vives, C.
    ;
    Alvarez-Dardet, C.
    The quality of peer review is an essential part of the scientific process1 and nowadays its evaluation is an emergent area of research. The gender perspective is however, still rarely integrated in this kind of study. There is empirical evidence about sex bias in choosing referees. Women are still less required by editors than men in peer review processes. As other studies have shown, male reviewers took significantly longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts and male reviewers recommend acceptance and rejection at higher rates than their female counterparts, who were more prone to revisions. The under use of women as reviewers seems then not justified by any quality criteria, as has been shown as well by the measurement of variables of time to answer and referees recommendations to authors. In addition, the promotion of gender parity in the peer review process could contribute to a reduction in the traditional invisibility of women in scientific knowledge development. This study has been done with the main objective to detect gender bias in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) peer review process and to identify differences, if any, between peer reviews with a gender perspective. The analysis includes the editors perceived quality of the review plus the other variables suggested by other studies as time to answer and referees recommendations to authors.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Bornmann, L.
    ;
    Mutz, R.
    ;
    Daniel, H.-D.
    The universalism norm of the ethos of science requires that contributions to science are not excluded because of the contributors' gender, nationality, social status, or other irrelevant criteria. Here, a generalized latent variable modeling approach is presented that grant program managers at a funding organization can use in order to obtain indications of potential sources of bias in their peer review process (such as the applicants' gender). To implement the method, the data required are the number of approved and number of rejected applicants for grants among different groups (for example, women and men or natural and social scientists). Using the generalized latent variable modeling approach indications of potential sources of bias can be examined not only for grant peer review but also for journal peer review. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models Open PDF 
    (2009)
    Bornmann, L.
    ;
    Mutz, R.
    ;
    Daniel, H.-D.
    In the grant peer review process we can distinguish various evaluation stages in which assessors judge applications on a rating scale. BORNMANN & AL. [2008] show that latent Markov models offer a fundamentally good opportunity to model statistically peer review processes. The main objective of this short communication is to test the influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models. We found differences in transition probabilities from one stage to the other for applications for a doctoral fellowship submitted by male and female applicants. © 2009 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.