Summary There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014. Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi‐authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender‐neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.

1. Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively. 2. In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process. 3. Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. 4. Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. 5. There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review. 6. Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editorselected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process. 7. Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions.

No abstract