Sohad Murrar1, Paula A Johnson2, You-Geon Lee3, Molly Carnes4,5,6. 1. Division of Psychology and Counseling, College of Education, Governors State University, University Park, Illinois, USA. 2. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Center for Women's Health Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Departments of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
Authors: Daniel M Blumenthal; Andrew R Olenski; Robert W Yeh; Doreen DeFaria Yeh; Amy Sarma; Ada C Stefanescu Schmidt; Malissa J Wood; Anupam B Jena Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Molly Carnes; Patricia G Devine; Linda Baier Manwell; Angela Byars-Winston; Eve Fine; Cecilia E Ford; Patrick Forscher; Carol Isaac; Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; Mari Palta; Jennifer Sheridan Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Lindon M H Wing; Christopher M Reid; Philip Ryan; Lawrence J Beilin; Mark A Brown; Garry L R Jennings; Colin I Johnston; John J McNeil; Graham J Macdonald; John E Marley; Trefor O Morgan; Malcolm J West Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nancy D Spector; Philomena A Asante; Jasmine R Marcelin; Julie A Poorman; Allison R Larson; Arghavan Salles; Amy S Oxentenko; Julie K Silver Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 7.124