Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
| Main Authors: | Fox, Charles W., Burns, C. Sean, Muncy, Anna D., Meyer, Jennifer A. |
|---|---|
| Format: | info dataset Journal |
| Terbitan: |
, 2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://zenodo.org/record/4933066 |
| ctrlnum |
4933066 |
|---|---|
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<dc schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><creator>Fox, Charles W.</creator><creator>Burns, C. Sean</creator><creator>Muncy, Anna D.</creator><creator>Meyer, Jennifer A.</creator><date>2016-09-22</date><description>There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014.
Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi-authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender-neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.</description><description>Main data set, one paper per rowThis is an anonymized version of the dataset used for most of the analyses in Fox et al. 2016. Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is random. Editor ID is also randomized. Columns that could allow the dataset to be de-anonymized, such as editor seniority and editor years on the editorial board, have been deleted. The dataset includes one line per manuscript. This file allows recreation of most but not all analyses in the published manuscript. This is an anonymized version of the dataset used for the analyses in Fox et al. 2016. Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is random.Fox et al data_anonymized_submitted to Dryad.xlsxData for papers reviewed by one male and one female reviewer.This file include only manuscripts that were reviewed by exactly one male and one female reviewer. The final two columns in the file include the review scores submitted by the male and female reviewer. Manuscript IDs are anonymized independently of those in the other data file provided for this manuscript.Paired reviewer data_anonymized_submitted to Dryad.xlsx</description><identifier>https://zenodo.org/record/4933066</identifier><identifier>10.5061/dryad.0mv3q</identifier><identifier>oai:zenodo.org:4933066</identifier><relation>doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12587</relation><relation>url:https://zenodo.org/communities/dryad</relation><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><rights>https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode</rights><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Gender discrimination</subject><subject>Women in science</subject><subject>gender bias</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><title>Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal</title><type>Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/other</type><type>Other:dataset</type><recordID>4933066</recordID></dc>
|
| format |
Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/other Other Other:dataset Journal:Journal Journal |
| author |
Fox, Charles W. Burns, C. Sean Muncy, Anna D. Meyer, Jennifer A. |
| title |
Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| topic |
Authorship Gender discrimination Women in science gender bias Peer review |
| url |
https://zenodo.org/record/4933066 |
| contents |
There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014.
Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi-authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender-neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender. Main data set, one paper per rowThis is an anonymized version of the dataset used for most of the analyses in Fox et al. 2016. Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is random. Editor ID is also randomized. Columns that could allow the dataset to be de-anonymized, such as editor seniority and editor years on the editorial board, have been deleted. The dataset includes one line per manuscript. This file allows recreation of most but not all analyses in the published manuscript. This is an anonymized version of the dataset used for the analyses in Fox et al. 2016. Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is random.Fox et al data_anonymized_submitted to Dryad.xlsxData for papers reviewed by one male and one female reviewer.This file include only manuscripts that were reviewed by exactly one male and one female reviewer. The final two columns in the file include the review scores submitted by the male and female reviewer. Manuscript IDs are anonymized independently of those in the other data file provided for this manuscript.Paired reviewer data_anonymized_submitted to Dryad.xlsx |
| id |
IOS16997.4933066 |
| institution |
ZAIN Publications |
| institution_id |
7213 |
| institution_type |
library:special library |
| library |
Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies |
| library_id |
5267 |
| collection |
Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies |
| repository_id |
16997 |
| subject_area |
Multidisciplinary |
| city |
Stockholm |
| province |
INTERNASIONAL |
| shared_to_ipusnas_str |
1 |
| repoId |
IOS16997 |
| first_indexed |
2022-06-06T05:24:38Z |
| last_indexed |
2022-06-06T05:24:38Z |
| recordtype |
dc |
| _version_ |
1734905163104124928 |
| score |
17.610363 |