Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution

An online survey of ecology and evolution editors was conducted to assess the characteristics of journal editors and describe manuscript-handling practices. A total of 450 respondents – representing 155 ecology and evolution journals – participated. The following patterns were detected: (1) there are more male than female editors; (2) the greater the number of manuscripts handled per year by editors, the lower the proportion are rejected without review; and (3) previous review time, scientific status, and seniority of reviewers are factors that editors consider when selecting a reviewer. This research highlights the potential importance of editor characteristics in the peer-review process; we suggest that increased transparency promotes both recognition of the editor population and more equitable reviewing practices.

[1]  J. Kassirer.  Why Be a Medical Editor , 2001 .

[2]  Robert H. Fletcher,et al.  The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution , 2008, PloS one.

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

[5]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example. , 1998, JAMA.

[6]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals , 2008 .

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

[8]  Michael S. Wilkes,et al.  Policies, practices, and attitudes of north american medical journal editors , 1995, Journal of general internal medicine.

[9]  J. Koricheva,et al.  What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  M. Kearney,et al.  An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices. , 2005, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[11]  Sara Schroter,et al.  Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  J. Garrow,et al.  The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals. , 1998, JAMA.

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

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