ArticleJournal of cardiac failure2025
Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure.
Article in Journal of cardiac failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meeting the moment: using scientific conferences and journals to promote equity and inclusion in animal science.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Article
- Can't Rain on Our Parade: Highlights from the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Annual Scientific Meeting 2024.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in the field of cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously using single-blind reviews, with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews.
methodsManuscripts were stratified into 3 Eras: March-September 2021 (Era 1: prior to double-blind reviews); March-September 2022 (Era 2); and March-September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and disciplines of the first and senior authors.
resultsA total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3, while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time-around 21%-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first-author discipline, and last-author gender, there was an increase in female first authors over time (P = 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and may highlight areas for future improvement by the Journal and academic publishing in general.
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.