Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

Abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate whether there is an association between women’s representation as peer reviewers and editors of medical journals.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the gender of editors and peer reviewers of journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group (BMJ-PG) in 2020 was determined based on given names. Trends over time were analysed for the BMJ between 2009 and 2017.ResultsOverall, this study included 47 of the 74 journals in the BMJ-PG. Women accounted for 30.2% of the 42 539 peer reviewers, with marked variation from 8% to 50%. Women represented 33.4% of the 555 editors, including 19.2% of the 52 editors-in-chief. There was a moderate positive correlation between the percentage of women as editors and as reviewers (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.590; p<0.0001). The percentage of women as editors, excluding editors-in-chief, was higher when the editor-in-chief was a woman than a man (53.3% vs 29.2%, respectively; p<0.0001). Likewise, the percentage of women as peer reviewers was higher in journals that had a woman as editor-in-chief in comparison with a man (32.0% vs 26.4%, respectively; p<0.0001). There was a slight increase in the percentage of women as peer reviewers from 27.3% in 2009 to 29.7% in 2017 in the BMJ.ConclusionsWomen account for less than one in three peer reviewers of medical journals. Women’s representation as peer reviewers is higher in journals with higher percentage of women as editors or with a woman as editor-in-chief. It is, thus, imperative to address the persisting gender gap at all levels of the publishing system.

Investigation of potential gender bias in the peer review system at Reproduction

“…Both female and male AEs appointed more male reviewers than female reviewers, but female AEs were significantly more likely to appoint female reviewers than male AEs (Table 3: n = 9282; χ 2 p < 0.001). Again, this outcome is consistent with the literature (Buckley et al, 2014; Fox et al, 2016; Pinho‐Gomes et al, 2022). We note that these data take into account only those reviewers who accepted an invitation to review, with no information available about those who were approached but then declined.…”

Analysis of peer reviewers’ response to invitations by gender and geographical region: cohort study of manuscripts reviewed at 21 biomedical journals before and during covid-19 pandemic

“…Previous works on publicly available datasets have also shown gender and geographical bias in peer review 717181920. Our dataset enabled us to look at both invitations and responses to these same invitations, and we found that women were not only less frequently invited to review but also agreed less often than men, compounding this gender inequality.…”

“…This is the first study to explore gender and geographical diversity in invitations to review and responses to these invitations and to consider factors associated with this agreement at several levels (journals, manuscripts, reviewers, and editors). We included all review invitations at multiple journals, whereas other studies have been limited to online peer review reports of published manuscripts, focused on a single journal, or used aggregated metadata 1415161718192023323335. We explored geographical diversity by using multivariable analyses with both geographical affiliation and the income level of the country, which increases the understanding of the identified associations.…”

“…Some studies have analysed the selection of peer reviewers and their response to invitations to review submissions to biomedical journals; however, as this information is confidential, these studies have largely been done within single journals and may not be representative beyond their communities 141516. Analyses of published peer reviews and public acknowledgment statements to named reviewers of biomedical journals have shown gender and geographical bias in the contributions 17181920…”

Striving for gender equity at theMedical Journal of Australia

“…Why is this important? First, the systematic exclusion of women and minoritised groups from access to leading, reviewing for, and publishing in high impact journals is, in itself, unjust and inequitable, 3,4 and perpetuates inequalities in science and medicine more broadly. Second, decades of scholarship in clinical medicine, public health and the social sciences have established that sex and gender are important drivers of health outcomes and health inequities 5 .…”