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.
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