The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews

Abstract

13To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this 14 gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women 15 may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers' unconscious biases lead them 16 to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived 17 gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby 18 neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities and genders. To test the 19 efficacy of double-blind reviews, we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper 20 published in 5 different journals with different peer review processes (double-blind vs. single 21 blind) and subject matter (birds vs. behavioral ecology) from 2010-2018 (n = 4865 papers). 22While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total, the double-blind journal Behavioral 23 Ecology did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, 24 the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (Behavioral Ecology 25 and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis), 26 for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind 27 review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied 28 here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female 29 authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental. 30 34 to assess the contributions of women to authorship, editorship, and collaborations, as well as to 35 determine whether manuscript reviewers might be biased with respect to the gender, nationality, 36 and reputation of authors. In a global, multidisciplinary, bibliometric analysis of 5.5 million 37 academic papers published from 2008 to 2012, for example, Larivière et al. (2013) found that 38women published relatively fewer papers than men, were less likely to be first or last author on 39 multi-authored papers, and, even when women were in these 'dominant author' positions, their 40 papers were less likely to be cited than when men were first or last author. These various gender 41 gaps varied by discipline, and author nationality but are echoed in a recent analysis of both 42 manuscript submissions and published papers in 7 ecology journals (Fox, Ritchey & Paine, 43 2018). Several studies indicate that this gap has been ameliorating over the most recent decade, 44 suggesting that changes in society at large, and in the scientific publishing process, in particular, 45 are proving to be beneficial to female academics. 47While it is unclear whether-but expected that-gender biases against women will influence 48 research careers (Larivière et al., 2013), factors that reduce publication rate and quality will 49 certainly have a negative impact. For that reason, many journals have adopted a double-blind 50 reviewing policy wher...

Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis

“…Most approaches to disparate outcomes focus on choices made by individuals, such as double-blinded reviews and implicit bias training. These cannot fully remedy the effects of implicit bias and may even worsen outcomes ( 54 , 55 ). Since disparate outcomes (by gender, geography, prestige, or otherwise) are primarily the result of accumulated disadvantages and actions resulting from implicit biases and systemic “-isms,” a structural, system-wide approach is required ( 56 – 58 ).…”