Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

Budden, Amber E.; Tregenza, Tom; Aarssen, Lonnie W.; Koricheva, Julia; Leimu, Roosa; Lortie, Christopher J.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Cited by 453 publications

(366 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

352

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven papers (58%) of the 12 found within the "different methods of peer review" theme specifically discussed the double-blinded peer-review process [2,10,28,29,39,44,46]. A consistent theme throughout these articles centered on the argument that there is inconsistent evidence that the double-blinded review process actually improves peer review and more research must be done before a conclusion can be reached [10,13,29,41,46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fabricating results is ethical misconduct, but authors must also understand that altering data to misrepresent [11,20,31]. Another prevalent theme in the literature was the discussion of different versions of peer review, which was discussed in 12 (32%) of the articles reviewed [2,10,13,19,23,28,29,39,41,44,46,47]. These different methods of peer review include the single-blinded system, doubleblinded system, open system, peer agreement system, and author suggestion-based system ( Table 2).…”

Section: Prevalence Of Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

Larson

Chung

2012

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The usefulness of peer review has been expressed as a method to improve the quality of published work. However, there has been a lack of systematic reviews to date to highlight the essential themes of the peer-review process. Methods We performed a search of the English language literature published prior to October 2011 using PubMed to identify articles regarding peer review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori. Data were extracted and then analyzed for the prevalence of peer-review themes contained within the literature. Results Of the 941 articles found during our original literature search, 37 were selected for review. The majority were commentary/editorial articles. The themes in our search included the structure and process of the peer-review system, the criteria for papers, ethics, and the different forms of the peer-review process. Conclusions The criteria for submission will vary, but our systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of what reviewers expect from authors. Our systematic review also highlighted ethical considerations for both authors and reviewers during the peer-review process. Although the topic of peer review is expansive and its process may vary from journal to journal, the understanding of the themes outlined in this paper will help authors recognize how to write a more successful paper. Also, more research must be carried out to establish the efficacy of the different styles of peer review, and it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions until further research is established.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prevalence Of Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

Larson

Chung

2012

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evidence on whether there is bias in peer review against certain author demographics is mixed, but overwhelmingly in favor of systemic bias against women in article publishing ( Budden et al , 2008; Darling, 2015; Grivell, 2006; Helmer et al , 2017; Kuehn, 2017; Lerback & Hanson, 2017; Lloyd, 1990; McKiernan, 2003; Roberts & Verhoef, 2016; Smith, 2006; Tregenza, 2002) (although see also Blank (1991); Webb et al (2008); Whittaker (2008)). After the journal Behavioural Ecology adopted double blind peer review in 2001, there was a significant increase in accepted manuscripts by women first authors; an effect not observed in similar journals that did not change their peer review policy ( Budden et al , 2008).…”

Section: The Traits and Trends Affecting Modern Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the journal Behavioural Ecology adopted double blind peer review in 2001, there was a significant increase in accepted manuscripts by women first authors; an effect not observed in similar journals that did not change their peer review policy ( Budden et al , 2008). One of the most recent public examples of this bias is the case where a reviewer told the authors that they should add more male authors to their study ( Bernstein, 2015).…”

Section: The Traits and Trends Affecting Modern Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

“…Authors are asked to declare their adhesion to the African Journal of Herpetology ethical code during their manuscript submission through our online manuscript tracking system, ScholarOne (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ther). All submissions have double-blind peer-review (neither names of authors or reviewers are disclosed), a policy which prevents discrimination based on author identity (Budden et al 2008), and is preferred by the majority of publishing scientists (Ware 2011). Multiple rounds of peer-review are onerous on authors, editors and reviewers and are avoided where possible.…”

Section: Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The past, present and future of African herpetology

Measey

2011

African Journal of Herpetology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.*After 47 years and 60 volumes, editorial policy in the scholarly journal of the Herpetological Association of Africa has changed from largely unscientific to strictly scientific. I investigate the causes for this by examining the changes in editorial policy throughout the history of the journal and find that there has been a gradual change with some important milestones. Of key importance were the introduction of the peer-review process in 1979 and the inception of a newsletter in 1983. Interest in African herpetology is growing and the quality and quantity of articles in African Journal of Herpetology are seen to continue to increase. The future may include changes in the way that the content is produced, but will continue to provide a platform for herpetological discoveries on the African continent; thereby verifying the maxim: ex Africa aliquid semper novi.

show abstract

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

Cited by 453 publications

References 14 publications

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

The past, present and future of African herpetology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About