PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Ecology and EvolutionSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Fox, Charles W.
    ;
    Burns, C. Sean
    ;
    Meyer, Jennifer A.
    Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over-selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early-career male and female editors but differed a lot between late-career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The role of women in Brazilian ethnobiology: Challenges and perspectives Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Da Silva, T.C.
    ;
    De Medeiros, P.M.
    ;
    Hanazaki, N.
    ;
    Da Fonseca-Kruel, V.S.
    ;
    Hora, J.S.L.
    Background: The article aims to analyze the representativeness of women in ethnobiological publications within the Brazilian context, as well as to relate the difficulties faced by women in their scientific careers in terms of gender bias. Biases found in publications are relevant themes to different areas of knowledge, considering the historical persistence of male privilege in these activities. We analyzed the role of women in ethnobiological scientific publications and sought to reflect on gender issues in academic practices and fieldwork. Methods: We conducted a 28-year survey of academic publications in Brazil, through the Scopus and Web of Science databases, in order to infer the female representation in ethnobiological literature. We also sent 77 questionnaires to ethnobiologists associated with the Brazilian society of ethnobiology and ethnoecology or indicted by associates through snowball sampling. Results: We observed that there are more articles where the senior author is male (p < 0.05). However, there are no differences in the number of publications led by men and women (p > 0.05), which shows a positive trend in terms of representation. Within subareas, ethnozoology had more male authors than other subareas of ethnobiology. Articles whose senior authors are men tend to be published in journals with a higher impact (p < 0.05). The interviews with Brazilian ethnobiologists showed that 53.2% of the interviewees reported feeling discriminated against in the academic environment because they were women. Moreover, 61.0% said they had disadvantages in collecting data because they were women. Additionally, most of the researchers reported having witnessed cases of sexism in the studied communities. Conclusion: In the current scenarios of female participation, it is possible to reflect and identify advances and challenges associated with gender bias in ethnobiological studies conducted by Brazilian, both in the emic and etic spheres of research and in our scientific practice. As researchers in the area, we deal directly with social problems in the studied communities, such as violence against women, sexism, and prejudice, as well as the many problems faced in the academic universe itself. © 2019 The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Investigation of potential gender bias in the peer review system at Reproduction Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Biolkova, M
    ;
    Moore, T
    ;
    Schindler, K
    ;
    Swann, K
    ;
    Vail, A
    This study examined whether publication outcome was affected by the gender of author, handling associate editor (AE), or reviewer, and whether there was gender bias in reviewer selection, in the journal Reproduction. Analyses were carried out on 4289 original research manuscripts submitted to the journal between 2007 and 2019. Both female and male AEs appointed more male reviewers than female reviewers, but female AEs were significantly more likely to appoint female reviewers than male AEs were (p < 0.001). When examining the gender of either first or last author manuscripts, those with female authors that were reviewed by female reviewers received better scores than those with male authors that were reviewed by female reviewers (p < 0.05): where the reviewer was male, no such effect was observed. Acceptance rates of manuscripts were similar for both female and male authors, whether first or last, regardless of AE gender. Overall, there was no significant correlation between gender of first or last author, or of AE, on the likelihood of acceptance of a research paper. These data suggest no bias against female authors during the peer review process in this reproductive biology journal.