DSpace-CRIS

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review Open PDF
(2022)
Kern-Goldberger, Adina R.
;
James, Richard
;
Berghella, Vincenzo
;
Miller, Emily S.
OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF
(2021)
Whitelaw, Sera
;
Sullivan, Kristen
;
Eliya, Yousif
;
Alruwayeh, Mohammad
;
Thabane, Lehana
AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.
Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Open PDF
(2019)
Roper, Rachel L.
The percentage of women employed in professional scientific positions has been low but is increasing over time. The U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have both implemented programs to improve women's participation in science, and many universities and companies have diversity and equity programs. While most faculty and scientists believe that they are fair and unbiased, numerous well-designed studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals show that gender bias in sciences and medicine is widespread and persistent today in both faculty and students. Recent studies show that gender bias affects student grading, professional hiring, mentoring, tenure, promotion, respect, grant proposal success, and pay. In addition, sexual harassment remains a significant barrier. Fortunately, several studies provide evidence that programs that raise conscious awareness of gender bias can improve equity in science, and there are a number of recommendations and strategies for improving the participation of women.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results