Traditional culture-based methods have incompletely defined the etiology of common recalcitrant human fungal skin diseases including athlete’s foot and toenail infections. Skin protects humans from invasion by pathogenic microorganisms, while providing a home for diverse commensal microbiota1. Bacterial genomic sequence data have generated novel hypotheses about species and community structures underlying human disorders2,3,4. However, microbial diversity is not limited to bacteria; microorganisms such as fungi also play major roles in microbial community stability, human health and disease5. Genomic methodologies to identify fungal species and communities have been limited compared with tools available for bacteria6. Fungal evolution can be reconstructed with phylogenetic markers, including ribosomal RNA gene regions and other highly conserved genes7. Here, we sequenced and analyzed fungal communities of 14 skin sites in 10 healthy adults. Eleven core body and arm sites were dominated by Malassezia fungi, with species-level classifications revealing greater topographical resolution between sites. By contrast, three foot sites, plantar heel, toenail, and toeweb, exhibited tremendous fungal diversity. Concurrent analysis of bacterial and fungal communities demonstrated that skin physiologic attributes and topography differentially shape these two microbial communities. These results provide a framework for future investigation of interactions between pathogenic and commensal fungal and bacterial communities in maintaining human health and contributing to disease pathogenesis.

Summary 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.

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.

Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.