Trial reportNature ecology & evolution2023
Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.
Trial report in Nature ecology & evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Double anonymous peer review inJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Ten simple rules for organising an effective student-led writing retreat.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Perceptions of Arab researchers regarding publishing scientific research: A cross-sectional study.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Gaps in tropical science from unrepresentative distribution of sampling and citation across natural terrestrial environments.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Climate research in the Global South.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Geographical diversity of peer reviewers shapes author success.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Mastering Abstract Review for Medical Education Conferences: Fundamental Tips to Grow and Support Scholars.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary.Research ethics · 2025Article
- Widespread lack of article accessibility policies among ecology and evolution journals.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence: The researcher's assistant or sheep in wolf's clothing?United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
- Be excellent to each other.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Online toolkits for collaborative and inclusive global research in urban evolutionary ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Science over language: a plea to consider language bias in scientific publishing.Critical care science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36914773What 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.