Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution.
The characteristics of referees and the potential subsequent effects on the peer-review process are an important consideration for science since the integrity of the system depends on the appropriate evaluation of merit. In 2006, we conducted an online survey of 1334 ecologists and evolutionary biologists pertaining to the review process. Respondents were from Europe, North America and other regions of the world, with the majority from English first language countries. Women comprised a third of all respondents, consistent with their representation in the scientific academic community. Among respondents we found no correlation between the time typically taken over a review and the reported average rejection rate. On average, Europeans took longer over reviewing a manuscript than North Americans, and females took longer than males, but reviewed fewer manuscripts. Males recommended rejection of manuscripts more frequently than females, regardless of region. Hence, editors and potential authors should consider alternative sets of criteria, to what exists now, when selecting a panel of referees to potentially balance different tendencies by gender or region.
Grod
Olyana N
ON
Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. olyanag@yorku.ca
Budden
Amber E
AE
Tregenza
Tom
T
Koricheva
Julia
J
Leimu
Roosa
R
Aarssen
Lonnie W
LW
Lortie
Christopher J
CJ
D005075:Biological Evolution; D004463:Ecology / Q000592:standards*; D035081:Editorial Policies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D017594:Publication Bias; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards* / Q000639:trends; D012106:Research / Q000639:trends*; D012737:Sex Factors
J Orthod. 2006 Mar;33(1):1-2
16514127
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6
17963996
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jun;184(6):1731-5
15908521
J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Winter;23(4):539-43
16795738
Science. 2005 Aug 19;309(5738):1190-1
16109868
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):149-51
8015129
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Dec;183(6):1545-50
15547189
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1341-3
2304211
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):139-42
8015126
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1338-40
2304210
Prev Med. 1996 Mar-Apr;25(2):102-4
8860274
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):137-8
8015125
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):96-7
8015140
Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 Jun;31(2):145-52
17562902