ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage.Human resources for health · 2020Pooled it
- Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Trial
- Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Trial
- Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals.eLife · 2026Article
- Biomedical and life science articles by female researchers spend longer under review.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Geographical diversity of peer reviewers shapes author success.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Do Manuscripts by Female Evolutionary Biologists Spend Longer Under Review?Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Gender and Authorship in Annals of Surgery: A nineteen-year review including the pandemic.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- A persistent gender pay gap among faculty in a public university system.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Overcoming citation bias is necessary for true inclusivity in Plant Science.The Plant cell · 2023Article
- Gendered Performance Gaps in an Upper-Division Biology Course: Academic, Demographic, Environmental, and Affective Factors.CBE life sciences education · 2023Article
- Gender inequality in cum laude distinctions for PhD students.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Influence of participant and reviewer characteristics in application scores for a hematology research training program.Blood advances · 2023Article
- Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for a mom-friendly Academia.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.