Dataset Information

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals.

ABSTRACT: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.

SUBMITTER: Squazzoni F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8528305 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals.

Squazzoni Flaminio F Bravo Giangiacomo G Grimaldo Francisco F García-Costa Daniel D Farjam Mike M Mehmani Bahar B

PloS one 20211020 10

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that dur ...[more]

PMID: 34669713

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresFor each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined.ResultsIn total, the journal sought review for 5013 manuscripts, including 4295 Original Investigations (85.7%) and 718 Research Letters (14.3%); 1860 manuscripts were submitted during the prepandemic period and 3153 during the pandemic period. Comparing the prepandemic with the pandemic period, the mean (SD) number of reviews rated as high quality (very good or excellent) per manuscript increased slightly from 1.3 (0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) time for reviewers to return reviews was modestly shorter (from 15.8 [7.6] days to 14.4 [7.0] days; P < .001), a difference that persisted in linear regression models accounting for manuscript type, study design, and whether the manuscript addressed COVID-19.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe gender and geographical inequalities in invitations to review and the response to these invitations and to assess whether inequalities increased during the covid-19 pandemic.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting19 specialist medical journals and two large general medical journals from BMJ Publishing Group.PopulationReviewers invited to review manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. The cohort was followed up to 28 February 2022.Main outcome measuresReviewer's agreement to review.ResultsA total of 257 025 reviewers were invited (38.6% (88 454/228 869) women), and 90 467 (35.2%) agreed to review. Invited reviewers were mainly (217 682; 84.7%) affiliated with high income countries: Europe (122 414; 47.6%), North America (66 931; 26.0%), Africa (25 735; 10.0%), Asia (22 693; 8.8%), Oceania (16 175; 6.3%), and South America (3076; 1.2%). Independent factors associated with agreement to review were gender (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92, for women compared with men), geographical affiliation (2.89, 2.73 to 3.06, for Asia; 3.32, 2.94 to 3.75 for South America; 1.35, 1.27 to 1.43, for Oceania; and 0.35, 0.33 to 0.37, for Africa compared with Europe), and country income (0.47, 0.45 to 0.49, for upper middle income; 5.12, 4.67 to 5.61, for lower middle income; and 4.66, 3.79 to 5.73, for low income compared with high income country). Agreement was also independently associated with editor's gender (0.96, 0.93 to 0.99, for women compared with men), last author's geographical affiliation (0.80, 0.78 to 0.83, for Asia; 0.89, 0.85 to 0.94, for Oceania compared with Europe), impact factor (1.78, 1.27 to 2.50, for >10 compared with <5), and type of peer review process (0.52, 0.35 to 0.77, for open compared with anonymised). During the first and second phases of the pandemic, agreement was lower than in the pre-pandemic period (P<0.001). The interaction between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's gender was non-significant. However, significant interaction was found between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's geographical affiliation.ConclusionsTo reduce bias and improve diversity, editors need to identify and implement effective strategies and continually evaluate progress against these to ensure that more women and researchers from upper middle income and low income countries are involved in review.

Dataset Information

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals.

Publications

Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets