The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review

Demarest, Bradford; Freeman, Guo; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1354-z

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A few studies have suggested that female reviewers are more likely to recommend rejection (Borsuk et al 2009;Wing et al 2010) or that female editors are more likely to reject papers (Gilbert et al 1994), and at least one study has found an interaction between reviewer and author gender, with female reviewers reviewing female-authored papers more favourably (Lloyd 1990). However, this interaction was not observed in other studies (Petty, Fleming & Fabrigar 1999;Walker et al 2015) and most analyses of journal peer review data find no effect of reviewer or editor gender on review scores or manuscript decisions (Kliewer et al 2005;Bornmann & Daniel 2007;Grod et al 2008;Isenberg, Sanchez & Zafran 2009;Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto 2014;Walker et al 2015; note: Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto 2014 conclude that 'female reviewers gave lower reviews than male reviewers' in their study but clearly state in their Results that this result is not statistically significant). Notably, the studies that report gender bias in journal peer review data sets are generally older than the studies reporting no bias, possibly reflecting changing social attitudes towards women in science (Walker et al 2015).…”

Section: R E V I E W E R G E N D E R a F F E C T S A S P E C T S O F mentioning

confidence: 59%

“…; Bornmann & Daniel ; Grod et al . ; Isenberg, Sanchez & Zafran ; Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto ; Walker et al . ; note: Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto conclude that ‘female reviewers gave lower reviews than male reviewers’ in their study but clearly state in their Results that this result is not statistically significant).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Isenberg, Sanchez & Zafran ; Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto ; Walker et al . ; note: Demarest, Freeman & Sugimoto conclude that ‘female reviewers gave lower reviews than male reviewers’ in their study but clearly state in their Results that this result is not statistically significant). Notably, the studies that report gender bias in journal peer review data sets are generally older than the studies reporting no bias, possibly reflecting changing social attitudes towards women in science (Walker et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: R E V I E W E R G E N D E R a F F E C T S A S P E C T S O F mentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…what is dubbed cognitive particularism [40], whereby scholars harbor preferences for work and 48 ideas similar to their own [41]. Evidence of this process has been reported in peer review in the 49 reciprocity (i.e., correspondences between patterns of recommendations received by authors and 50 patterns of recommendations given by reviewers in the same social group) between authors and 51 reviewers of the same race and gender [42] (see also [43,44]). Reciprocity can exacerbate or Starting from the left, an initial submission is first given an initial decision of encourage or reject, and if encouraged, continues through the first full review and subsequent rounds of revision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

133

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

show abstract

“…This means that looking at referee behavior could potentially help to reveal scientist misbehavior or situations where referees could benefit from their gatekeeping role at the expense of editors and/or authors (e.g., Bornmann, Weymuth, & Daniel, ; Lamont, ; García, Rodriguez‐Sánchez & Fdez‐Valdivia, ); it could also inform us about the nature of the social norms of reviewing and so help to counterbalance possible bias (e.g., Bornmann & Daniel, ; Demarest, Zhang, & Sugimoto, ; Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang, & Cronin, ; Mahoney, ; Sugimoto & Cronin, ), especially in multidisciplinary journals where heterogeneous norms coexist and could conflict (e.g., Huutoniemi, Thompson Klein, Bruun, & Hukkinen, ). Observing the behavior of referees is even more important for multidisciplinary journals, in which problems of incompatible standards of judgment can arise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis

Casnici

Grimaldo

Gilbert

et al. 2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper looks at 10 years of reviews in a multidisciplinary journal, The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS), which is the flagship journal of social simulation. We measured referee behavior and referees' agreement. We found that the disciplinary background and the academic status of the referee have an influence on the report time, the type of recommendation and the acceptance of the reviewing task. Referees from the humanities tend to be more generous in their recommendations than other referees, especially economists and environmental scientists. Second, we found that senior researchers are harsher in their judgments than junior researchers, and the latter accept requests to review more often and are faster in reporting. Finally, we found that articles that had been refereed and recommended for publication by a multidisciplinary set of referees were subsequently more likely to receive citations than those that had been reviewed by referees from the same discipline. Our results show that common standards of evaluation can be established even in multidisciplinary communities. IntroductionReviewing for journals is a kind of moral duty in the scientific community, being instrumental to the Mertonian ethical norms that regulate science as an organized institution Merton 1942). We know that the quality of our publications depends at least partially on comments and suggestions given by competent and cooperative referees (e.g., Mulligan, Hall, & Raphael, 2013). On the other hand, we know that science is a public good that can be maintained only if we are unbiased in judgment and collaborate in distributing efficiently and more or less equally the reviewing effort (e.g., Hochberg, Chase, Gotelli, Hastings, & Naeem, 2009).Given that review standards are not formalized and our decisions are typically confidential, it is likely that the way we accomplish this duty may depend on our background and experience, as well as on our commitment to the journal that asked our opinion. Given the lack of training on reviewing, the opacity of the process, and the weak incentives for referees, the way we review and the time we take to accomplish this important task might depend on attitudes and norms that can reflect the attitudes of the other members of our scientific community (e.g., Azar, 2008;Squazzoni & Gandelli, 2013).This means that looking at referee behavior could potentially help to reveal scientist misbehavior or situations where referees could benefit from their gatekeeping role at the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.expense of editors and/or authors (e.g., Bornmann, Weymuth, & Daniel, 2010;Lamont, 2009;Garc ıa, Rodriguez-S anchez & Fdez-Valdivia, 2015); it could also inform us about the nature of the social norms of reviewing and so help to counter...

show abstract

The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review

Cited by 25 publications

References 30 publications

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

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

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About