News - Double-blind article reviews help female authors

How's this for an eye-opener? 

Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23:4-6.

Abstract

Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Published 17 June 08 11:32 by Andrew.Rate
Filed under: , , ,

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# sky said on June 17, 2008 1:11 PM:

An interesting study for those who think sexism is dead in academia. Thanks for posting it.

# Brett said on June 17, 2008 5:37 PM:

Yes, interesting.  I'm sure sexism is not dead in academia!  But how robust are these findings?  There's an interesting exchange of letters in the latest issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution, showing that all the journals under review had an increase in female authorship over time, and that it is arguable whether the increase in female authorship is really statistically significantly greater in the double-blinded journal than the others.  A good topic for further research, perhaps?  No one in the letters suggests that sexism is dead, but they do argue over whether double-blind review is the right step forward in addressing sexism in academia.

As someone very early in their career (and a bloke, I might add), I have mixed feelings about blinding of peer review.  Blinding has good face value in that it should allow impartiality.  However, it doesn't leave reviewers accountable for what they have written - rather, it protects them.  I recently wrote a paper which was rejected by a (more glamorous) journal which has a double blind peer review process.  It was later accepted by one of the new open access journals, which not only have unblinded peer review, but also publish all the drafts and peer-reviews in a "pre-publication" section on their website (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/167/prepub ).  I have to say that the reviews we received from the latter journal were much more detailed and gave the impression of having much more time and critical thought invested in them.  I think that making reviewers visible may really encourage reviewers to do a good job!

Perhaps a mixed model may be best - double blinding at the stage of peer review, followed by unblinding and publication of the pre-publication writings once a decision has been made to publish.  This might allow the best of both worlds: impartiality and accountability.  But I may be asking too much of these voluntary peer reviewers!  Thoughts?

# Sanna said on June 18, 2008 10:59 AM:

blind peer review good: impartiality

blind peer review bad: no accountability

unblind (?) peer review good: accountability

unblind peer review bad: no impartiality

take your pick...

As someone who has been the middleperson between authors and reviewers I lean towards blind peer review, and this is because I don't actually think blind peer review lacks accountability.

Although the referee and the author do not know who the other one is, the editor knows who both are. The referee can't just shout obscenities at an author, or vice versa, cloaked by anonymity: all comments are made in front of (and via) an objective observer. An author may feel at the mercy of potentially vicious referees, but the referee does forward their own personal judgement, taking responsibility of their words, to another real person they know by name. If the referee still feels compelled to say your research is nonexistent an your argument flawed, they may in fact mean it.

While I think it would be great (or just 'interesting'?) to know who your referees have been, I think unblinding the process after the fact would still amount to the same as an unblind process from the start. Keep in mind that some authors react very badly to rejection, and as a referee you won't know whether the article you are turning down was written by a potential cyberstalker or not.

If somewhere down the track your name was going to be released to disgruntled authors (or even pleased ones who assumed they could now facebook friend you seeing as you're such a fan of their work), how keen would you be to do the refereeing in the first place?

# robyn.owens said on June 18, 2008 6:27 PM:

Of course, all this refereeing is comparable to examining PhD theses. At UWA we have a completely open process - the candidate knows the reviewers and the reviewers know the candidates, and the reviewers know that their names will be attached to their reports. The idea is that there should be no conflict of interest in the examination process, either of a positive or negative bias. Open reviewing generally means that if someone is going to be critical, they do it in a scholarly way, rather than attacking the person. However the gender question is interesting. I will look into quality in thesis results on the basis on gender (although this won't necessarily say anything about the reviewing process until we run a double-blind examination experiment).

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

  
Enter Code Here: Required

About Andrew.Rate

I have worked at UWA since 1995, coming from New Zealand to take an appointment as Lecturer in the Soil Science group in the former Faculty of Agriculture. I completed my PhD, from Lincoln University in New Zealand, in 1991. If you really want to find out about work stuff go here. In real life I love my wife, daughter and guitar. Occasionally, I wish I had chosen a career as a carpenter, counsellor or poet.

Search

Go

This Blog

Research Group Info

PhD Scholarship available now!

About Soil Chemistry at UWA

Read our group's recent publication list

School of Earth and
Environment at UWA

List of journal club articles

 

"...this blue green ball in black space,
filled with beauty even now."
    - Bruce Cockburn

 

Syndication