Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?

J. R. Gilbert, E. S. Williams and G. D. Lundberg
Department of Public Policy, Stanford University, Palo Alto.

OBJECTIVE--To assess whether manuscripts received by JAMA in 1991 possessed differing peer review and manuscript processing characteristics, or had a variable chance of acceptance, associated with the gender of the participants in the peer review process. DESIGN--Retrospective cohort study of 1851 research articles. SETTING--JAMA editorial office. PARTICIPANTS--Eight male and five female JAMA editors, 2452 male and 930 female reviewers, and 1698 male and 462 female authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Statistically significant gender bias. RESULTS--Female editors were assigned manuscripts from female corresponding authors more often than were male editors (P < .001). Female editors used more reviewers per manuscript if sent for other review. Male reviewers assisted male editors more often than female editors, and male reviewers took longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts (median, 25 vs 22 days). Content reviewer recommendations were independent of corresponding author and review gender, while male statistical reviewers recommended the highest and lowest categories more frequently than did female statistical reviewers (P < .001). Manuscripts handled by female editors were rejected summarily at higher rates (P < .001). Articles submitted to JAMA in 1991 were not accepted at significantly different rates based on the gender of the corresponding author or the assigned editor (P < .4). CONCLUSIONS--Gender differences exist in editor and reviewer characteristics at JAMA with no apparent effect on the final outcome of the peer review process or acceptance for publication.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Women in Leadership Positions in the Medical Academic Enterprise: What Are the Next Steps?
Wenger
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:449-450.
FULL TEXT  

The Representation of Women on the Editorial Boards of Major Medical Journals: A 35-Year Perspective
Jagsi et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:544-548.
FULL TEXT  

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Ross et al.
JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reviewing the Reviewers: Comparison of Review Quality and Reviewer Characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology
Kliewer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;184:1731-1735.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers
Kliewer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004;183:1545-1550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process?
del Carmen Davo et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2003;57:936-937.
FULL TEXT  

The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias
Opthof et al.
Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:339-346.
FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making
Olson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2825-2828.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience
Jayasinghe et al.
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS 2001;23:343-364.
ABSTRACT  

Women Physicians in Academic Medicine
Lawless et al.
NEJM 2000;342:1839-1840.
FULL TEXT  

The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance
Petty et al.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1999;25:188-203.
ABSTRACT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT