Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Abstract

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over‐selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early‐career male and female editors but differed a lot between late‐career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

Journals invite too few women to referee

“…Publishers should consider further ways to train and educate their staff in combating bias. Encouraging authors and editors to invite more women to review, especially younger women, would be a start 11 . Funding agencies should similarly examine their practices.…”

Peer review in the development of academic articles: Experiences of Finnish authors in the educational sciences

“…PR ‘indicated exercise of power’ or ‘included unjustified accusations’). To capture versatile aspects of feedback, I scanned several measurement tools in the research literature to design the statements (see Bradley, ; Fox, Burns, & Meyer, ; Gibson, Spong, Martin, & Scott, ; Majumber, ; Mulligan et al, ; Paltridge, ; Resnik, ; Resnik, Gutierrez‐Ford, & Peddada, ; Sence about Science, ; Shattell et al, ; Taylor & Francis, ; Ware, ; Weber, Katz, Waeckerle, & Callaham, ; Wicherts, ).…”

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

“…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.…”