title: Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. olyanag@yorku.ca
authors.forename: Olyana N
authors.initials: ON
authors.lastname: Grod
authors.forename: Amber E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Budden
authors.forename: Tom
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tregenza
authors.forename: Julia
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Koricheva
authors.forename: Roosa
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Leimu
authors.forename: Lonnie W
authors.initials: LW
authors.lastname: Aarssen
authors.forename: Christopher J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Lortie
mesh_terms: 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
references.citation: J Orthod. 2006 Mar;33(1):1-2
references.pmid: 16514127
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6
references.pmid: 17963996
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jun;184(6):1731-5
references.pmid: 15908521
references.citation: J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Winter;23(4):539-43
references.pmid: 16795738
references.citation: Science. 2005 Aug 19;309(5738):1190-1
references.pmid: 16109868
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):149-51
references.pmid: 8015129
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Dec;183(6):1545-50
references.pmid: 15547189
references.citation: JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1341-3
references.pmid: 2304211
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):139-42
references.pmid: 8015126
references.citation: JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1338-40
references.pmid: 2304210
references.citation: Prev Med. 1996 Mar-Apr;25(2):102-4
references.pmid: 8860274
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):137-8
references.pmid: 8015125
references.citation: JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):96-7
references.pmid: 8015140
references.citation: Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 Jun;31(2):145-52
references.pmid: 17562902