Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Abstract

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

Representation of female authors in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of articles between 1954 and 2017

“…Although the relationship between reviewer and author gender on acceptance rates is conflicting, 15,16 a recent study found gender bias in all-male reviewer teams favoring male last authors. 17 A lower original and editorial article submission rate from female authors may result from demographic differences between male and female anesthesiologists in Canada as well as other countries, as a larger proportion of female anesthesiologists in Canada are earlier in their academic careers. This may have contributed to the disparity in editorial authorship in particular, which typically requires a higher degree of seniority.…”

What Is in a “Lake” Name? That Which We Call a Lake by Any Other Name

“…Moreover, this network-based approach is likely to be influenced by implicit and explicit biases against researchers of particular genders, geographic locations, career positions, and ethnicities (among other things). Although the potential for gender and geographic biases in the peer review system are well-established (Helmer et al 2017;Murray et al 2018;Fox and Paine 2019), relatively fewer studies have investigated disparities on editorial board composition (but see Murray et al 2018). Even less is known about the professional trajectories of AEs, particularly their publishing experiences before becoming editors (but see Metz et al 2016).…”

The influence of first author sex on acceptance rates of submissions to Anaesthesia Cases

“…This at least allows the reviewer to recluse themselves if they do have any conflicts and may also identify author self-plagiarism.In a recent publication, Murray et al considered the peer review outcomes of more than 30,000 submissions to the biosciences journal eLife[4]. This at least allows the reviewer to recluse themselves if they do have any conflicts and may also identify author self-plagiarism.In a recent publication, Murray et al considered the peer review outcomes of more than 30,000 submissions to the biosciences journal eLife[4].…”