Peer review maintains barriers for historically excluded groups

Silbiger, NJ & Stubler, AD Unprofessional peer reviews harm disproportionately underrepresented groups in STEM. peerJ 7e8247 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Peters, DP & Ceci, SJ Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, resubmitted. behavior brain science. 5187-195 (1982).

Article Google Scholar

Tregenza, T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Eco. Development 17349-350 (2002).

Article Google Scholar

Burns, CS & Fox, CW Language and Socioeconomics predict geographic variation in peer-reviewed findings from an ecology journal. scientometry 1131113-1127 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Fox, CW & Paine, CET Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript influence in six ecology and evolution journals. Ecol. Development 93599-3619 (2019).

Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Llorens, A. et al. Gender bias in science: a lifelong problem that needs solutions. neuron 1092047-2074 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Ceci, SJ & Williams, WM Understanding current causes of women’s under-representation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Science. USA 1083157-3162 (2011).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Brodie, S. et al. Justice in Science: Advocating for a triple-blind review system. Trends Eco. Development 36957-959 (2021).

Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A. & Battaglia, D. Gender bias in scientific peer reviews. eLife 6e21718 (2017).

Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Squazzoni, F. et al. Peer review and gender bias: a study of 145 scholarly journals. Science. adult 7eabd0299 (2021).

Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Godlee, F. & Dickerson, K. in Peer Review in Health Sciences (Eds. Jefferson, T., & Godlee, F.) 91-117 (Wiley, 2003).

Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F. & Murad, MH Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clinic. percent 94670-676 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Shoham, N. & Pitman, A. Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Adv. 27247-254 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Budden, AE et al. The double-blind review favors a stronger representation of female authors. Trends Eco. Development 234-6 (2008).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Whittaker, RJ Journal Review and Gender Equality: a Critical Comment on Budden et al. Trends Eco. Development 23478-479 (2008).

Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

Budden, AE et al. Response to Whittaker: Challenges of testing for gender bias. Trends Eco. Development 23480-481 (2008).

Article Google Scholar

Webb, TJ, O’Hara, B. & Freckleton, RP Do female authors benefit from double-blind peer review? Trends Eco. Development 23351-353 (2008).

Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

O’Hara, B. Double-Blind Review: Let Diversity Rule. Nature 45228 (2008).

Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

Naqvi, KR Double Blind Review: The paw print is a giveaway. Nature 45228 (2008).

Article CAS PubMedGoogle Scholar

Maas, B. et al. Women and the Global South are conspicuously underrepresented among top ecologists. preserved Latvian. 14e12797 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

McGillivray, B. & De Ranieri, E. Inclusion and Outcome of Manuscripts in Nature Journals by Review Model and Author Characteristics. integrated resolution peer rev 31-12 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Alam, M. et al. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatological journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br. J. Dermatol. 165563-567 (2011).

Article CAS PubMedGoogle Scholar

Jagsi, R. et al. Attitudes towards peer review blinding and perceptions of effectiveness within a small biomedical specialty. international J Radiat. unc. biol. physics 89940-946 (2014).

Article PubMedGoogle Scholar

Fox, CWe et al. Double blind peer review – an experiment. funct. Ecol. 334-6 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Lloyd, ME Gender Factors in Reviewer’s Recommendations for Manuscript Preparation. J. Appl. behavior Anal. 23539-543 (1990).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Ramírez-Castañeda, V. Disadvantages in producing and publishing academic papers caused by the dominance of the English language in academia: the case of Colombian researchers in the life sciences. Plus one 151-15 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Ehara, S. & Takahashi, K. Reasons for rejection of submitted manuscripts AJR by international authors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 188113-116 (2007).

Article Google Scholar

Harris, M., Macinko, J., Jimenez, G., Mahfoud, M. & Anderson, C. Does a research article’s country of origin affect perceptions of its quality and relevance? A national study by US health researchers. BMJ open 51-10 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Harris, M. et al. Explicit bias towards research in high-income countries: a randomised, blinded, crossover experiment of English clinicians. health Af. 361997-2004 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Steinpreis, RE, Anders, KA & Ritzke, D. The influence of gender on job applicant and tenure candidate resume review: a national empirical study. Sex. roll 41509-528 (1999).

Article Google Scholar

Mehta, D. et al. Opportunities to increase equity, diversity and inclusion. eLife 91-4 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Else, H. & Perkel, JM The grand scheme to pursue diversity in research journals. Nature 602566-570 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Stefanoudis, PV et al. Turning the tide of skydiving science. act. biol. 31R184-R185 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Stossel, TP & Stossel, SC Declining American representation in leading clinical research journals. N. Engl. J. Med. 322739-742 (1990).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

The world fact book. CIA https://www.cia.gov/ (2021).

Amano, T. & Sutherland, WJ Four Obstacles to Global Understanding of Biodiversity Conservation: Wealth, Language, Geographical Location, and Security. Proc. R. Soc. B 28020122649 (2013).

Article PubMed PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Eberhard, DM, Simons, GF & Fennig, CD Ethnologist: Languages ​​of the World (SIL International, 2022).

crystal, d The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages. European Commission https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s1049_77_1_ebs386?locale=de (2014).

Zhang, X. Impact of reviewer’s origin on peer review: China vs. non-China. Learn. publ. 25265-270 (2012).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Walker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K. & Telefont, M. Personal characteristics of authors and reviewers, social biases, and the results of peer reviews: a case study. F1000Research 421 (2015).

PubMed PubMed Headquarters Google Scholar

Brooks, ME et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility between packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R.J 9378-400 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).

Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.4 http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/ (2021).

Ludecke, D., Ben-Shachar, MS, Patil, I., Waggoner, P. & Makowski, D. Performance: an R package for evaluating, comparing, and testing statistical models. J. Open Source Software 63139 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Bolker, B., & R Core Team. bbmle: tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. R package version 1.0.24 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bbmle (2021).

Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. biome J 50346-363 (2008).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lenth, RV emmeans: Estimated marginal means, also known as least squares mean. R package version 1.7.1-1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2021).

Smith, OM et al. Peer review maintains barriers for historically excluded groups. figs https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21865830 (2023).

Tennekes, M. tmap: thematic maps in R. J.Stat. software 841-39 (2018).

Article Google Scholar