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.

[1]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[2]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Publication bias and merit in ecology , 2007 .

[3]  Jerome P. Kassirer,et al.  Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.

[4]  J Smith,et al.  What do peer reviewers do? , 1990, JAMA.

[5]  E Frank,et al.  Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal. , 1996, Preventive medicine.

[6]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.

[7]  R. Sokal,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research (2nd ed.). , 1982 .

[8]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  D. Benos,et al.  The ups and downs of peer review. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.

[10]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Margaret E. Lloyd,et al.  Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[12]  Maurice B. Line,et al.  Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses , 2002 .

[13]  PHILLIP CASSEY,et al.  Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists , 2004 .

[14]  Tom Tregenza,et al.  Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .

[15]  A. Weller Editorial peer review : its strengths and weaknesses , 2001 .

[16]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[17]  James M Provenzale,et al.  Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  J. R. Gilbert,et al.  Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.

[19]  J. Olden,et al.  Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? , 2006 .

[20]  Nancy Jennings,et al.  REVIEW: Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice , 2005 .

[21]  E. Lawson,et al.  Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. , 1994, JAMA.

[22]  A. Yankauer,et al.  Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.

[23]  D. Millett Training the Reviewer? , 2006, Journal of orthodontics.

[24]  M Nylenna,et al.  Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. , 1994, JAMA.

[25]  A. Møller,et al.  Testing and adjusting for publication bias , 2001 .