Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Abstract

Summary There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014. Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi‐authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender‐neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.

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

“…When adding reviewer gender to the analysis, we see that women were less likely than men to respond to review invitations (as described in Fox et al . ), but there was no evidence of an interaction between reviewer gender and preferred reviewer status on the probability that they responded to the review invitation ( PreferredReviewer * ReviewerGender interaction : = 1·77, P = 0·18).…”

“…Editor and reviewer gender also influence some additional aspects of the peer review process, such as reviewer responses to review invitations (Fox et al . ). Though we know of no studies addressing the influence of gender on author suggestion of reviewers, our prior observations of gender differences lead us to predict that male and female authors may also differ in the number or gender of reviewers they suggest when submitting a manuscript, and that these differences might influence the process of peer review.…”

“…The influence of editor, reviewer and author gender on peer review outcomes remains a topic of debate (reviewed in Fox et al . ; Fox, Burns & Meyer ). However, it is clear, at least for ecology journals, that author and editor gender predict the proportion of women invited to review; female editors invite more women to review than do male editors (Buckley et al .…”

“…; Fox et al . ) and women are invited to review more often if manuscript authors are women than if the authors are men for at least one ecology journal ( Functional Ecology ; Fox, Burns & Meyer ). Editor and reviewer gender also influence some additional aspects of the peer review process, such as reviewer responses to review invitations (Fox et al .…”

Authorship and Gender in ESA Journals

“…), including ecology journals (Fox et al. ), have shown similar rates of submissions by women, around one‐third of the total. The overall submission rates ranged from 27% female for Ecological Monographs to 32% for Ecosphere and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (Fig.…”