PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22

Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men Open PDF
(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, 2021)
Murrar, Sohad
;
Johnson, Paula A.
;
Lee, You-Geon
;
Carnes, Molly
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence Open PDF
(2020)
Mihaljević, H.
;
Santamaría, L.
Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority. © 2020 Helena Mihaljević and Lucía Santamaría.
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.
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.
Towards gender equity in Australian health and medical research funding Open PDF
(2023)
Kelso, A
Re: “Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer Reviewed Medical Publications” Bernardi et al Open PDF
(Elsevier B. V., 2020)
Ibrahim, H.
;
Archuleta, S.
;
Stadler, D.J.
;
Cofrancesco, J.
Gender bias in scholarly peer review Open PDF
(eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2017)
Helmer, Markus
;
Schottdorf, Manuel
;
Neef, Andreas
;
Battaglia, Demian
;
Rodgers, Peter
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.
Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research. Open PDF
(2018)
Willis, Malachi
;
Jozkowski, Kristen N.
The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.
The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities Open PDF
(2018)
Williams, Wadsworth A.
;
Garvey, Katherine L.
;
Goodman, Denise M.
;
Lauderdale, Diane S.
;
Ross, Lainie Friedman
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.
Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap Open PDF
(2023)
Si, K
;
Li, YW
;
Ma, C
;
Guo, F
We document an affiliation bias in top Chinese journals and the gender gap in the current affiliation effect. We find that papers written by researchers who are affiliated with the journals' host institutions on average receive fewer citation counts than those written by non-affiliated researchers. Moreover, we show that this affiliation bias is greater for men than for women. We propose that the current effect can be accounted for by a social capital mechanism, and we provide evidence consistent with our proposition. In addition, the results of our analyses demonstrate heterogeneity of the affiliation bias and the gender gap with regard to researcher status. We discuss alternative mechanisms of the current effect and implications of our research.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results