Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups

被引：52

作者：

Smith, Olivia M. ^{[1
,2
,3
]}

Davis, Kayla L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Pizza, Riley B. ^{[1
,4
]}

Waterman, Robin ^{[1
,4
]}

Dobson, Kara C. ^{[1
,2
]}

Foster, Brianna ^{[1
,5
]}

Jarvey, Julie C. ^{[1
,2
]}

Jones, Leonard N. ^{[1
,2
,6
]}

Leuenberger, Wendy ^{[1
,2
]}

Nourn, Nan ^{[1
,3
,7
]}

Conway, Emily E. ^{[1
,4
]}

Fiser, Cynthia M. ^{[1
,5
]}

Hansen, Zoe A. ^{[1
,8
,9
]}

Hristova, Ani ^{[1
,2
]}

Mack, Caitlin ^{[1
,2
]}

Saunders, Alyssa N. ^{[1
,2
]}

Utley, Olivia J. ^{[1
,2
]}

Young, Moriah L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Davis, Courtney L. ^{[1
,2
,10
]}

机构：

[1] Michigan State Univ, Evolut & Behav Program, Ecol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA

[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Integrat Biol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA

[3] Michigan State Univ, Ctr Global Change & Earth Observ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA

[4] Michigan State Univ, Dept Plant Biol, E Lansing, MI USA

[5] Michigan State Univ, Dept Entomol, E Lansing, MI USA

[6] Univ Michigan, Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Ann Arbor, MI USA

[7] Michigan State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, E Lansing, MI USA

[8] Michigan State Univ, Dept Microbiol & Mol Genet, E Lansing, MI USA

[9] Univ Minnesota, Dept Plant Pathol, St Paul, MN USA

[10] Cornell Univ, Cornell Lab Ornithol, Ithaca, NY USA

来源：

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | 2023年 / 7卷 / 04期

关键词：

GENDER BIAS; REPRESENTATION; JOURNALS; OUTCOMES; ECOLOGY; IMPACT;

D O I：

10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w

中图分类号：

Q14 [生态学（生物生态学）];

学科分类号：

071012 ; 0713 ;

摘要：

A meta-analysis of peer-review data from over 300,000 biological sciences manuscripts reveals worse review outcomes for authors from historically excluded groups, and limited data evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to address bias in peer review. Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.

引用

页码：512 / +

页数：26