Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review
暂无分享,去创建一个
Cassidy R. Sugimoto | Andrew M. Collings | Wei Mun Chan | Dakota S. Murray | V. Larivière | C. Sugimoto | Kyle Siler | Jennifer Raymond
[1] F. Squazzoni,et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals , 2019, Nature Communications.
[2] Ran Blekhman,et al. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints , 2019, bioRxiv.
[3] Misha Teplitskiy,et al. The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review , 2018, Research Policy.
[4] Julia Schroeder,et al. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal , 2018, PloS one.
[5] Christophe Bernard,et al. Editorial: Gender Bias in Publishing: Double-Blind Reviewing as a Solution? , 2018, eNeuro.
[6] A. van de Rijt,et al. The Matthew effect in science funding , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[7] Robyn Tamblyn,et al. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada , 2018, Canadian Medical Association Journal.
[8] Y. Shoda,et al. Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals , 2018, bioRxiv.
[9] Barbara McGillivray,et al. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics , 2018, Research Integrity and Peer Review.
[10] D. Groneberg,et al. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals , 2018, PloS one.
[11] H. Witteman,et al. Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist , 2017, bioRxiv.
[12] Erin Hengel,et al. Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. , 2017 .
[13] Min Zhang,et al. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[14] A. Darzi,et al. Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians. , 2017, Health affairs.
[15] S. R. King. Consultative review is worth the wait , 2017, eLife.
[16] Fei Shu,et al. Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016) , 2017, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..
[17] F. Squazzoni,et al. Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data , 2017, Nature.
[18] Sarah Huggett,et al. Gender in the Global Research Landscape raw data , 2017 .
[19] Johanna Espin,et al. A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology , 2017, bioRxiv.
[20] V. Halloin,et al. Gender and research funding success: Case of the Belgian F.R.S.-FNRS , 2017 .
[21] Kim A. Weeden,et al. Degrees of Difference: Gender Segregation of US Doctorates by Field and Program Prestige , 2017 .
[22] Brooks Hanson,et al. Journals invite too few women to referee , 2017, Nature.
[23] S. Merchant,et al. The Plant Cell Begins Opt-in Publishing of Peer Review Reports[OPEN] , 2016, Plant Cell.
[24] M. Kocher,et al. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. , 2016, JAMA.
[25] Timothy Kassis,et al. How do research faculty in the biosciences evaluate paper authorship criteria? , 2016, bioRxiv.
[26] Vincent Larivière,et al. Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship , 2016, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.
[27] Wei Yang,et al. Policy: Boost basic research in China , 2016, Nature.
[28] Shilad Sen,et al. Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the Mathematical Sciences , 2016, PloS one.
[29] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production , 2016, Social studies of science.
[30] G. Pinholster,et al. Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review , 2016 .
[31] Andrew M. Collings,et al. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process , 2016, F1000Research.
[32] O. Pourquié,et al. Future developments: your thoughts and our plans , 2016, Development.
[33] N. Ellemers,et al. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[34] N. Zinovyeva,et al. Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter? , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.
[35] Theodore Eugene Day,et al. The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review , 2015 .
[36] Ricardo Conejo,et al. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study , 2015, F1000Research.
[37] A. Mulligan,et al. Nature journals offer double-blind review , 2015, Nature.
[38] Daniel B. Larremore,et al. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks , 2015, Science Advances.
[39] Claire Mathieu,et al. Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks , 2015, ITCS.
[40] Vincent Larivière,et al. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[41] Alexander M. Petersen,et al. Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: a case study of high-impact journals , 2014, EPJ Data Science.
[42] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review , 2014, Scientometrics.
[43] Sarah J. Graves,et al. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management , 2014, PeerJ.
[44] Molly Carnes,et al. Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender. , 2014, Trends in pharmacological sciences.
[45] Jason M. Sheltzer,et al. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[46] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.
[47] Lesley G. Campbell,et al. Gender-Heterogeneous Working Groups Produce Higher Quality Science , 2013, PloS one.
[48] R. Schekman,et al. The eLife approach to peer review , 2013, eLife.
[49] M. Bordons,et al. Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members , 2013, Scientometrics.
[50] Helen Shen. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap , 2013, Nature.
[51] Carl T. Bergstrom,et al. The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship , 2012, PloS one.
[52] Xiangyi Zhang,et al. Effect of reviewer's origin on peer review: China vs. non‐China , 2012, Learn. Publ..
[53] G. Bedi,et al. Gender inequality in awarded research grants , 2012, The Lancet.
[54] Karen Hapgood,et al. The academic jungle: ecosystem modelling reveals why women are driven out of research , 2012 .
[55] Michael Szell,et al. How women organize social networks different from men , 2012, Scientific Reports.
[56] Isabel Metz,et al. An update of gender diversity in editorial boards: a longitudinal study of management journals , 2012 .
[57] T. Pieber,et al. Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. , 2011, Gender medicine.
[58] Mary Stegmaier,et al. Getting on the Board: The Presence of Women in Political Science Journal Editorial Positions , 2011, PS: Political Science & Politics.
[59] Muriel Niederle,et al. Gender and Competition , 2011 .
[60] Laura Valkonen,et al. Gender balance in Cortex acceptance rates , 2011, Cortex.
[61] Hong Jiang,et al. Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for NIH Extramural Programs , 2011, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.
[62] Rodrigo Costas,et al. Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective , 2011, Scientometrics.
[63] Liv Langfeldt,et al. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2011 .
[64] S. Ceci,et al. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[65] Bernd Pulverer,et al. A transparent black box , 2010, The EMBO journal.
[66] Rebecca S. Benner,et al. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. , 2010, Journal of women's health.
[67] Isabel Metz,et al. Gender Diversity in Editorial Boards of Management Journals , 2009 .
[68] Amber E. Budden,et al. To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review , 2009 .
[69] Elizabeth R. Ellwood,et al. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation , 2009 .
[70] R. Primack,et al. Bias in the review process , 2008 .
[71] W. Heath. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , 2008 .
[72] Mark Ware,et al. Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - Results from an international study , 2008, Inf. Serv. Use.
[73] Françoise Salager-Meyer,et al. Scientific Publishing in Developing Countries: Challenges for the Future. , 2008 .
[74] Anna Duszak,et al. Publishing Academic Texts in English: A Polish Perspective. , 2008 .
[75] K. Zou,et al. Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. , 2008, Journal of women's health.
[76] Zosia Kmietowicz,et al. Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[77] S. Sonnad,et al. Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. , 2007, Journal of the National Medical Association.
[78] George Tomlinson,et al. The Meaning of Author Order in Medical Research , 2007, Journal of Investigative Medicine.
[79] M. Hochberg,et al. Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications , 2007, PLoS biology.
[80] Sara Schroter,et al. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
[81] A. Gelman,et al. The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant , 2006 .
[82] C. Gross,et al. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.
[83] 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.
[84] D. King. The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.
[85] Paola Villa,et al. The Editorial Boards of Italian Economics Journals: Women, Gender, and Social Networking , 2003 .
[86] Tom Tregenza,et al. Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .
[87] E Pasini,et al. Language and publication in "Cardiovascular Research" articles. , 2002, Cardiovascular research.
[88] Jerry A. Jacobs,et al. Gender and the Stratification of Colleges , 1999 .
[89] Leandre R. Fabrigar,et al. The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance , 1999 .
[90] Yu Xie,et al. Sex differences in research productivity : New evidence about an old puzzle , 1998 .
[91] A. Link. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. , 1998, JAMA.
[92] J. Grant,et al. No evidence of sexism in peer review , 1997, Nature.
[93] C. Wennerås,et al. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.
[94] J. R. Gilbert,et al. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.
[95] Harold Maurice Collins,et al. New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .
[96] Margaret E. Lloyd,et al. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.
[97] Burt V. Bronk,et al. Hierarchy of sciences , 1977 .
[98] Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al. Paradigm Development and Particularism: Journal Publication in Three Scientific Disciplines , 1977 .
[99] M A Schnitker,et al. THE AMERICAN FEDERATION FOR CLINICAL RESEARCH. , 1942, Science.
[100] Nature’s under-representation of women , 2018, Nature.
[101] Yoshinori Hatori,et al. The Difference between Significant and Non-significant , 2017 .
[102] Michaela Willi-Hooper,et al. Gender bias in scholarly peer review , 2017 .
[103] C. Sean Burns,et al. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal , 2016 .
[104] Joon-Oh Park,et al. The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2014 .
[105] S. Adamo. Attrition of Women in the Biological Sciences: Workload, Motherhood, and Other Explanations Revisited , 2013 .
[106] Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al. Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..
[107] H. Breithaupt. Searching for discrimination Are women treated fairly in the EMBO postdoctoral fellowship scheme ? , 2013 .
[108] Nigel W. Bond,et al. Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model , 2011, J. Informetrics.
[109] S. Ceci,et al. Sex Differences in Math-Intensive Fields , 2010 .
[110] Susan M. Barnett,et al. Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.
[111] Lutz Bornmann,et al. Gatekeepers of science - Effects of external reviewers' attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications , 2007, J. Informetrics.
[112] Shelley J. Correll,et al. Expectation states theory. , 2006 .
[113] Women in neuroscience: a numbers game , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.
[114] Joel Podolny. Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition , 2005 .
[115] R. Kostoff. The (scientific) wealth of nations , 2004 .
[116] J. S. Long,et al. Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism , 1995 .
[117] R. Blank. The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .
[118] William E. Winkler,et al. String Comparator Metrics and Enhanced Decision Rules in the Fellegi-Sunter Model of Record Linkage. , 1990 .
[119] Joseph Berger,et al. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction , 1972 .
[120] R. Merton. The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. , 1968, Science.