Gender climate in rheumatology peer review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10257577 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing.
| S-EPMC5360442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This research explores whether environmental scientists perceive their male and female peers differently when making statements in the media including policy advocacy. Environmental scientists in the United Kingdom were provided with a media statement by a fictitious scientist containing a mixture of scientific information and advocacy, and asked to rate the statement against various attributes. Attributes were designed to represent stereotypes associated with male and female tendencies, and with science (impartial objectivity) and the media (dramatic narrative). The statements were randomly assigned to one of two male and two female scientists. Where the statements were attributed to a female scientist, male environmental scientists rated the fictitious scientist as significantly more 'dramatic' and 'biased' than their female counterparts did. These gendered attributes are typically held as contrary to the norms of science, suggesting an implicit bias among male scientists when reviewing their female peers' media statements.
| S-EPMC8488648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether the gender of applicants and peer reviewers and other factors influence peer review of grant proposals submitted to a national funding agency.SettingSwiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).DesignCross-sectional analysis of peer review reports submitted from 2009 to 2016 using linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for research topic, applicant's age, nationality, affiliation and calendar period.ParticipantsExternal peer reviewers.Primary outcome measureOverall score on a scale from 1 (worst) to 6 (best).ResultsAnalyses included 38 250 reports on 12 294 grant applications from medicine, architecture, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geology, history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, psychology and sociology submitted by 26 829 unique peer reviewers. In univariable analysis, male applicants received more favourable evaluation scores than female applicants (+0.18 points; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23), and male reviewers awarded higher scores than female reviewers (+0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15). Applicant-nominated reviewers awarded higher scores than reviewers nominated by the SNSF (+0.53; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.56), and reviewers from outside of Switzerland more favourable scores than reviewers affiliated with Swiss institutions (+0.53; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.56). In multivariable analysis, differences between male and female applicants were attenuated (+0.08; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13) whereas results changed little for source of nomination and affiliation of reviewers. The gender difference increased after September 2011, when new evaluation forms were introduced (p=0.033 from test of interaction).ConclusionsPeer review of grant applications at SNSF might be prone to biases stemming from different applicant and reviewer characteristics. The SNSF abandoned the nomination of peer reviewers by applicants. The new form introduced in 2011 may inadvertently have given more emphasis to the applicant's track record. We encourage other funders to conduct similar studies, in order to improve the evidence base for rational and fair research funding.
| S-EPMC7440717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible 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 authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.
| S-EPMC7787493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore gender equity in rheumatology leadership in the Asia-Pacific region as represented by the member national organizations (MNOs) of the Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of gender representation among the presidents of MNOs of APLAR in April 2022. We used the official website of each organization to acquire names and terms in the office of current and past presidents of each organization. The binary gender of each president was estimated using the name-to-gender inference platform Gender API (https://gender-api.com/). Proportions of male and female presidents were estimated for each organization. Data were compared for presidencies commencing before and in/after the year 2000.ResultsWe found a significant gap in gender parity, with most presidents in the region being men (210 of 252, 83%). More than one-third (7 of 19, 36.8%) of the MNOs had all male presidents, although the proportion of women improved from 7 to 25% in/after 2000 (P = 0.0002). A statistically significant increase in female representation was observed in Australia (P = 0.0268, from 7 to 39%) and New Zealand (P = 0.0011, where the proportion of female presidents increased from 0 to 45%), but not in other countries.ConclusionA significant gap in gender parity exists in rheumatology leadership in the MNOs of APLAR. Trends suggest improvement over the last two decades, although statistically significant improvement is limited to a small number of countries.
| S-EPMC9642329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the realm of scientific research, peer review serves as a cornerstone for ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly papers. Recent trends in promoting transparency and accountability has led some journals to publish peer-review reports alongside papers.ObjectiveChatGPT-4 (OpenAI) was used to quantitatively assess sentiment and politeness in peer-review reports from high-impact medical journals. The objective was to explore gender and geographical disparities to enhance inclusivity within the peer-review process.MethodsAll 9 general medical journals with an impact factor >2 that publish peer-review reports were identified. A total of 12 research papers per journal were randomly selected, all published in 2023. The names of the first and last authors along with the first author's country of affiliation were collected, and the gender of both the first and last authors was determined. For each review, ChatGPT-4 was asked to evaluate the "sentiment score," ranging from -100 (negative) to 0 (neutral) to +100 (positive), and the "politeness score," ranging from -100 (rude) to 0 (neutral) to +100 (polite). The measurements were repeated 5 times and the minimum and maximum values were removed. The mean sentiment and politeness scores for each review were computed and then summarized using the median and interquartile range. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Kruskal-Wallis rank tests, and negative binomial regressions.ResultsAnalysis of 291 peer-review reports corresponding to 108 papers unveiled notable regional disparities. Papers from the Middle East, Latin America, or Africa exhibited lower sentiment and politeness scores compared to those from North America, Europe, or Pacific and Asia (sentiment scores: 27 vs 60 and 62 respectively; politeness scores: 43.5 vs 67 and 65 respectively, adjusted P=.02). No significant differences based on authors' gender were observed (all P>.05).ConclusionsNotable regional disparities were found, with papers from the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa demonstrating significantly lower scores, while no discernible differences were observed based on authors' gender. The absence of gender-based differences suggests that gender biases may not manifest as prominently as other forms of bias within the context of peer review. The study underscores the need for targeted interventions to address regional disparities in peer review and advocates for ongoing efforts to promote equity and inclusivity in scholarly communication.
| S-EPMC11667125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.MethodsStudies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.ResultsAfter screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.ConclusionsThere is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact.
| S-EPMC5218731 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6953666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the peer review process is gender bias. In this study we evaluated the grant peer review process (external reviewers' ratings, and board of trustees' final decision: approval or no approval for funding) at the Austrian Science Fund with respect to gender. The data consisted of 8,496 research proposals (census) across all disciplines from 1999 to 2009, which were rated on a scale from 1 to 100 (poor to excellent) by 18,357 external reviewers in 23,977 reviews. In line with the current state of research, we found that the final decision was not associated with applicant's gender or with any correspondence between gender of applicants and reviewers. However, the decisions on the grant applications showed a robust female reviewer salience effect. The approval probability decreases (up to 10%), when there is parity or a majority of women in the group of reviewers. Our results confirm an overall gender null hypothesis for the peer review process of men's and women's grant applications in contrast to claims that women's grants are systematically downrated.
| S-EPMC3414231 | biostudies-other
Project description:Peer review is a decisive factor in selecting research grant proposals for funding. The usefulness of peer review depends in part on the agreement of multiple reviewers' judgments of the same proposal, and on each reviewer's consistency in judging proposals. Peer reviewers are also instructed to disregard characteristics that are not among the evaluation criteria. However, for example, the gender identity-of the investigator or reviewer-may be associated with differing evaluations. This experiment sought to characterize the psychometric properties of peer review among 605 experienced peer reviewers and to examine possible differences in peer review judgments based on peer reviewer and investigator gender. Participants evaluated National Institutes of Health-style primary reviewers' overall impact statements that summarized the study's purpose, its overall evaluation, and its strengths and weaknesses in five criterion areas: significance, approach, investigator, innovation, and environment. Evaluations were generally consistent between reviewers and within reviewers over a two-week period. However, there was less consistency in judging proposals with weaknesses. Regarding gender differences, women reviewers tended to provide more positive evaluations, and women investigators received better overall evaluations. Unsuccessful grant applicants use reviewer feedback to improve their proposals, which could be made more challenging with inconsistent reviews. Peer reviewer training and calibration could increase reviewer consistency, which is especially relevant for proposals with weaknesses according to this study's results. Evidence of systematic differences in proposal scores based on investigator and reviewer gender may also indicate the usefulness of calibration and training. For example, peer reviewers could score practice proposals and discuss differences prior to independently scoring assigned proposals.
| S-EPMC11651561 | biostudies-literature