| 1. |
- Squazzoni, Flaminio, et al.
(författare)
-
Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.
|
|
| 2. |
- Squazzoni, Flaminio, et al.
(författare)
-
Peer review and gender bias : A study on 145 scholarly journals
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Science Advances. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 2375-2548. ; 7:2, s. 1-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer reviewand editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journalsin various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed threepossible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions,and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authorsor coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were somedifferences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do notpenalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could helpjournals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.
|
|
