Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

Abstract

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.

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

“…In a previous paper, Fox et al () found that ~20% of first authors defer corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors, and that female first authors defer corresponding authorship more often than do male first authors. The corresponding author listed on the cover page of the manuscript is the author that submitted the paper to the journal for >99% of papers considered by Functional Ecology (Fox, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, ). We thus asked whether deferring corresponding authorship was predictive of how well a submitted manuscript fares after submission, and whether the gender difference in corresponding authorship could account for the gender differences in peer‐review outcomes observed in this study.…”

“…In a previous paper, Fox et al (2018) found that ~20% of first authors defer corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors, and that female first authors defer corresponding authorship more often than do male first authors. The corresponding author listed on the cover page of the manuscript is the author that submitted the paper to the journal for >99% of papers considered by Functional Ecology (Fox, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, 2017).…”

What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice

“…Fox et al . () found that author‐suggested reviewers are more likely to be male in general, and male authors are even more likely to suggest male reviewers. Editors also have been found to demonstrate homophily when selecting reviewers, both with regards to region (Gaston & Smart, ) and gender (Helmer, Schottdorf, Neef, & Battaglia, ).…”

Some perspective on Molecular Ecology perspectives: Are women being left out?

“…Although associate editors do not always use these suggestions, this is one place in which the scientific community at large can ensure that women are receiving an equal chance to guide the field, by the simple act of finding and suggesting appropriate reviewers who are women. As one would expect, there is no difference in reviewing outcome between men and women (Fox et al., , ). Authors can use lists such as DiversifyEEB to identify a balanced set of reviewers; we suggest that authors consider this for every publication they submit regardless of journal.…”

“…A relatively recent analysis, for example, found a very unbalanced ratio in the gender of manuscript reviewers for the journal Functional Ecology —between 82% and 73% of invited reviewers over a 10‐year period (from 2004 to 2014, respectively) were men (Fox, Burns, & Meyer, ). The gender of the editors and the reviewers suggested by authors significantly influenced the proportion of women invited to review; because the gender ratio of editors was majority men (100%–62.5%), and men were more likely to be suggested as reviewers (85%–75%), this led to fewer women reviewers overall (Fox, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, ; Fox et al., ). This striking difference in reviewing opportunities meant fewer women were offered chances for intellectual growth and for the ability to add their opinions and input to the reviewing process—in other words, they were not given an equal chance to shape the field.…”