View Item 

Show simple item record

Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution
dc.contributor.authorFox, Charles W.
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Meghan A.
dc.contributor.authorFairbairn, Daphne J.
dc.contributor.authorMeyer, Jennifer A.
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-05T15:08:02Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_11_MONTHS
dc.date.available2020-02-05T15:08:02Z
dc.date.issued2019-12
dc.identifier.citationFox, Charles W.; Duffy, Meghan A.; Fairbairn, Daphne J.; Meyer, Jennifer A. (2019). "Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution." Ecology and Evolution 9(24): 13636-13649.
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/153720
dc.description.abstractDespite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution, and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.
dc.publisherUniversity of British Columbia
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.othergender
dc.subject.otherpeer review
dc.subject.otherscholarly publishing
dc.subject.otherwomen in science
dc.subject.otherequality
dc.subject.othereditorial boards
dc.subject.otherdiscrimination
dc.subject.otherbias
dc.titleGender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScience
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153720/1/ece35794_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153720/2/ece35794.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ece3.5794
dc.identifier.sourceEcology and Evolution
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMauleón, E., Hillán, L., Moreno, L., Gómez, I., & Bordons, M. ( 2013 ). Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics, 95 ( 1 ), 87 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0824-4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., Burns, C. S., Muncy, A. D., & Meyer, J. A. ( 2017b ). Author‐suggested reviewers: Gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 31 ( 1 ), 270 – 280.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., & Paine, C. T. ( 2019 ). Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution, 9, 3599 – 3619.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., Ritchey, J. P., & Paine, C. T. ( 2018 ). Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and Evolution, 8 ( 23 ), 11492 – 11507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4584
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoulden, M., Mason, M. A., & Frasch, K. ( 2011 ). Keeping women in the science pipeline. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638 ( 1 ), 141 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211416925
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrod, O. N., Lortie, C. J., & Budden, A. E. ( 2010 ). Behind the shroud: A survey of editors in ecology and evolution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8 ( 4 ), 187 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1890/090048
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHelmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. ( 2017 ). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, 6, e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHo, R. C. M., Mak, K. K., Tao, R., Lu, Y., Day, J. R., & Pan, F. ( 2013 ). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: An online survey of academics from high‐ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 ( 1 ), 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIoannidou, E., & Rosania, A. ( 2015 ). Under‐representation of women on dental journal editorial boards. PLoS ONE, 10 ( 1 ), e0116630.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKarimi, F., Wagner, C., Lemmerich, F., Jadidi, M., & Strohmaier, M. ( 2016 ). Inferring gender from names on the web: A comparative evaluation of gender detection methods. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (pp. 53 – 54 ). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.04322.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLedin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F., & Wallon, G. ( 2007 ). A persistent problem: Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports, 8 ( 11 ), 982 – 987. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401109
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLerback, J., & Hanson, B. ( 2017 ). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541 ( 7638 ), 455 – 457.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManlove, K. R., & Belou, R. M. ( 2018 ). Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high‐rank ecological publications. PLoS ONE, 13 ( 2 ), e0192481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192481
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin, L. J. ( 2012 ). Where are the women in ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10 ( 4 ), 177 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1890/12.WB.011
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcDonald, S. ( 2011 ). What’s in the “old boys” network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks, 33 ( 4 ), 317 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.10.002
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcLemore, K. A. ( 2015 ). Experiences with misgendering: Identity misclassification of transgender spectrum individuals. Self and Identity, 14 ( 1 ), 51 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.950691
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. ( 2001 ). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 ( 1 ), 415 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMontague‐Hellen, B. ( 2018 ). Asking about gender and sexual orientation in your questionnaire. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6550277.v1
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton, M. J., & Sonnad, S. S. ( 2007 ). Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99 ( 7 ), 764.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Science Foundation ( 2015 ). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2014 (NSF Report 16–300). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Science Foundation ( 2019 ). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Special Report NSF 19‐304. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart, A. J., & Valian, V. ( 2018 ). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity and excellence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTopaz, C. M., & Sen, S. ( 2016 ). Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS ONE, 11 ( 8 ), e0161357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161357
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWehi, P. M., Beggs, J. R., & Anderson, B. J. ( 2019 ). Leadership and diversity in the New Zealand Ecological Society. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 43 ( 2 ), 3368. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.43.16
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWellenreuther, M., & Otto, S. ( 2016 ). Women in evolution–highlighting the changing face of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Applications, 9 ( 1 ), 3 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12343
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWing, D. A., Benner, R. S., Petersen, R., Newcomb, R., & Scott, J. R. ( 2010 ). Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women’s Health, 19 ( 10 ), 1919 – 1923. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1904
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoder, J. B., & Mattheis, A. ( 2016 ). Queer in STEM: Workplace experiences reported in a national survey of LGBTQA individuals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Journal of Homosexuality, 63 ( 1 ), 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1078632
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdamo, S. A. ( 2013 ). Attrition of women in the biological sciences: Workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited. BioScience, 63 ( 1 ), 43 – 48.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlzahrani, S. ( 2010 ). The role of editorial boards of scholarly journals on the green and the gold road to open access (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmrein, K., Langmann, A., Fahrleitner‐Pammer, A., Pieber, T. R., & Zollner‐Schwetz, I. ( 2011 ). Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gender Medicine, 8 ( 6 ), 378 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2011.10.007
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBacchelli, A., & Beller, M. ( 2017 ). Double‐blind review in software engineering venues: The community’s perspective. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE‐C) (pp. 385 – 396 ). Buenos Aires, Argentina: IEEE.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaucom, R. S., Geraldes, A. M., & Rieseberg, L. H. ( 2019 ). Some perspective on Molecular Ecology perspectives: Are women being left out? Molecular Ecology, 28, 2451 – 2455.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeck, C., Boersma, K., Tysor, C. S., & Middendorf, G. ( 2014 ). Diversity at 100: Women and underrepresented minorities in the ESA: Peer‐reviewed letter. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12 ( 8 ), 434 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1890/14.WB.011
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBorsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., & Lortie, C. J. ( 2009 ). To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59 ( 11 ), 985 – 989.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBroussard, K. A., Warner, R. H., & Pope, A. R. ( 2018 ). Too many boxes, or not enough? Preferences for how we ask about gender in cisgender, LGB, and gender‐diverse samples. Sex Roles, 78 ( 9–10 ), 606 – 624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0823-2
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuckley, H. L., Sciligo, A. R., Adair, K. L., Case, B. S., & Monks, J. M. ( 2014 ). Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology? New Zealand Ecological Society, 38 ( 2 ), 335 – 339.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCeci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. ( 2014 ). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15 ( 3 ), 75 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCho, A. H., Johnson, S. A., Schuman, C. E., Adler, J. M., Gonzalez, O., Graves, S. J., … Bruna, E. M. ( 2014 ). Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ, 2, e542. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.542
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConley, D., & Stadmark, J. ( 2012 ). Gender matters: A call to commission more women writers. Nature, 488 ( 7413 ), 590. https://doi.org/10.1038/488590a
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox, A. R., & Montgomerie, R. ( 2019 ). The cases for and against double‐blind reviews. PeerJ, 7, e6702. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6702
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDébarre, F., Rode, N. O., & Ugelvig, L. V. ( 2018 ). Gender equity at scientific events. Evolution Letters, 2 ( 3 ), 148 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.49
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuffy, M. A. ( 2017 ). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 7 ( 21 ), 8876 – 8887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEuropean Commission ( 2015 ). She Figures 2015. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W. ( 2017 ). Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution. Scientometrics, 113, 465 – 477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2489-5
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., Albert, A. Y., & Vines, T. H. ( 2017a ). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2 ( 1 ), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., Burns, C. S., & Meyer, J. A. ( 2016a ). Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30 ( 1 ), 140 – 153.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., Burns, C. S., Muncy, A. D., & Meyer, J. A. ( 2016b ). Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30 ( 1 ), 126 – 139.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
ece35794_am.pdf
Size:
831.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
ece35794.pdf
Size:
8.082MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.