The peer review model is one of the most important tools used in science to assess the relative merit of research. We manipulated a published article to reflect one of the following four author designations: female, male, initial, and no name provided. This article was then reviewed by referees of both genders at various stages of scientific training. Name changing did not influence acceptance rates or quality ratings. Undergraduate referees were less critical than graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, independent of gender. However, female postdoctoral researchers were the most critical referees: Their rejection rates were the highest and quality ratings the lowest, regardless of the author name provided. Contrary to previous reports in the literature, there was no evidence of same-gender preferences. This study strongly suggests that female postgraduate biologists may apply different expectations to peer review.

Citation metrics are widely used as a surrogate measure of scientific merit; however, these indices may be sensitive to factors and influences unrelated to merit. We examined citation rates for 5883 articles in relation to number of authors, first author's primary language, and gender. Citation rates were unrelated to primary language and gender but increased with author number. These findings add to a growing body of indirect evidence for potential attitudinal bias in the perceived merit of publications within ecology.