Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study

Walker, Richard; Barros, Beatríz; Conejo, Ricardo; Neumann, Konrad; Telefont, Martin

doi:10.12688/f1000research.6012.2

Cited by 37 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference in results between early studies and more recent studies may be reflect the increased number of women in science and better social attitudes about women in science (Walker et al . ). Controlled manipulative studies, in which author identity is manipulated on text provided to a study population, have more mixed results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; but see Walker et al . ), and no author gender‐x‐editor gender interactions (Lane & Linden ; Walker et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), and no author gender‐x‐editor gender interactions (Lane & Linden ; Walker et al . ). The difference in results between early studies and more recent studies may be reflect the increased number of women in science and better social attitudes about women in science (Walker et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) but primarily in the health sciences and other fields (Lane & Linden ; Heckenberg & Druml ; Walker et al . for manuscript review; Dickson ; Grant, Burden & Breen ; Friesen ; Ley & Hamilton ; Leemann & Stutz ; Sandström & Hällsten ; Marsh, Jayasinghe & Bond , ; Mutz, Bornmann & Daniel for grant reviews), generally find that peer review is gender neutral, though there are some exceptions (e.g., Knobloch‐Westerwick, Glynn & Huge ; Krawczyk & Smyk ). However, most manipulative studies use student populations as their raters, and the majority of analyses of peer review done by professional researchers look at grant applications; few have looked at manuscript submissions to academic journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; but see Walker et al . ), and no author gender‐x‐editor gender interactions (Lane & Linden ; Walker et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also recommend that future systematic reviews evaluate public resources such clinicaltrials.gov for additional study information. We recommend that journals consider a non-blinded peer review process to improve transparency and quality of the peer review process [34][35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Authors Suggestions For Reduction Of Publication Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials

Radcliff

Siburn

Murphy

et al. 2017

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selected cases. Despite favorable literature, CDR is not universally accepted because of concerns regarding bias in the existing literature. The purpose of this review is to identify the possible biases in the disc replacement literature. Recent findings Recent studies that compare CDR and ACDF have demonstrated equivalent or superior outcomes, lower rates of secondary surgery, and equivalent safety at mediumand long-term follow-up. In our review, we identified four types of bias that may affect the CDR literature: publication bias, external validity, confounding bias, and financial conflicts of interest. Summary Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can impact the interpretation and outcome of CDR studies. Recognition of this issue is critical when utilizing the existing literature to determine the efficacy of CDR and designing future studies.

show abstract