ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Publishing

Reviewers and editors favor scientific papers from those of their gender or nationality, study says

by Cheryl Hogue
September 3, 2018 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 96, ISSUE 35

 

Editors and peer reviewers of scientific journals favor manuscripts from authors of their gender or nationality, a study concludes. In an analysis posted on the preprint server bioRxiv, a team led by Dakota Murray of the University of Indiana, Bloomington, examined thousands of papers submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017 (bioRxiv 2018, DOI: 10.1101/400515). Murray and his colleagues found that women and authors from outside North America and Europe were underrepresented as editors and peer reviewers and as authors listed last on papers. They note that previous work shows the underrepresentation of these two groups as editors and peer reviewers is common at international scientific journals and not just eLife. When the researchers evaluated the gender balance of editors and peer reviewers for individual papers, they found that participation of men and women led to more diversity in authors of published papers. Murray and colleagues note that though the disparities they found in peer review outcomes are modest, the differences can be compounded through all the stages of manuscript review. The researchers have submitted their study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, to PLOS Biology.

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Not smart for me to say (January 4, 2019 2:25 PM)
This is really poor journalism. A highly charged headline for a very brief article describing a manuscript that has not yet been peer reviewed. What's the hurry? Why not wait until the conclusions are reviewed? This feminist garbage should not be allowed in C&EN (or anywhere else). My suspicion, based mainly on the comment that the disparities are modest, is that after peer review the conclusion will be that gender and nationality don't really affect the peer review process. However, that would not advance the feminist agenda, and so there was a need to strike now before the manuscript's message changes.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment