Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:30:35.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Gendered Is the Peer-Review Process? A Mixed-Design Analysis of Reviewer Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2021

Thomas König Open the ORCID record for Thomas König [Opens in a new window]  and
Guido Ropers Open the ORCID record for Guido Ropers [Opens in a new window]
Thomas König
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, Germany
Guido Ropers
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A fair peer-review process is essential for the integrity of a discipline’s scholarly standards. However, underrepresentation of scholarly groups casts doubt on fairness, which currently is raising concerns about a gender bias in the peer-review process of premier scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review (APSR). This study examines gender differences in APSR reviewing during the period 2007–2020. Our explorative analysis suggests that male reviewers privilege male authors and female reviewers privilege female authors, whereas manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers indicate less gender bias. Using within-manuscript variation to address confounding effects, we then show that manuscripts reviewed by both male and female reviewers receive a more positive evaluation by female reviewers in terms of recommendation and sentiment, but they experience a marginally longer duration. Because these effects are not specific for type of authorship, we recommend that invitations to review should reflect mixed compositions of peers, which also may avoid overburdening an underrepresented group with review workload.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alter, Karen J., Clipperton, Jean, Schraudenbach, Emily, and Rozier, Laura. 2020. “Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who Determines Whether a Scholar Is Noteworthy?” Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Political Science Review (APSR). 2020. “Notes from the Editors.” American Political Science Review 114 (2): v–viii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Watanabe, Kohei, Wang, Haiyan, Nulty, Paul, Obeng, Adam, Müller, Stefan, and Matsuo, Akitaka. 2018. “quanteda: An R Package for the Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data.” Journal of Open Source Software 3 (30): 774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Giangiacomo, Farjam, Mike, Moreno, Francisco Grimaldo, Birukou, Aliaksandr, and Squazzoni, Flaminio. 2018. “Hidden Connections: Network Effects on Editorial Decisions in Four Computer Science Journals.” Journal of Informetrics 12 (1): 101–12.10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuning, Marijke, Backstrom, Jeremy, Brannon, Jeremy, Gross, Benjamin Isaak, and Widmeier, Michael. 2015. “Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (4): 595–600.Google Scholar
Breuning, Marijke, Gross, Benjamin Isaak, Feinberg, Ayal, Martinez, Melissa, Sharma, Ramesh, and Ishiyama, John. 2018. “Clearing the Pipeline? Gender and the Review Process at the American Political Science Review .” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 629–34.Google Scholar
Brown, Nadia E., Horiuchi, Yusaku, Htun, Mala, and Samuels, David. 2020. “Gender Gaps in Perceptions of Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (1): 114–21.Google Scholar
Brown, Nadia E., and Samuels, David. 2018. “Introduction to Gender in the Journals, Continued: Evidence from Five Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (4): 847–48.Google Scholar
Budden, Amber E., Tregenza, Tom, Aarssen, Lonnie W., Koricheva, Julia, Leimu, Roosa, and Lortie, Christopher J.. 2008. “Double-Blind Review Favors Increased Representation of Female Authors.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (1): 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, David, DellaVigna, Stefano, Funk, Patricia, and Iriberri, Nagore. 2020. “Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (1): 269–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., Smith, Amy Erica, and Sokhey, Anand Edward. 2019. “Explaining Gender in the Journals: How Submission Practices Affect Publication Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (1): 71–77.Google Scholar
Helmer, Markus, Schottdorf, Manuel, Neef, Andreas, and Battaglia, Demian. 2017. “Gender Bias in Scholarly Peer Review.” Edited by Rodgers, Peter. eLife 6:e21718.Google Scholar
Hengel, Erin. 2017. Publishing While Female. Are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review. Working Paper. Accessed February 5, 2018. www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/270621.Google Scholar
Key, Ellen M., and Sumner, Jane Lawrence. 2019. “You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (4): 663–68.Google Scholar
König, Thomas, and Ropers, Guido. 2018. “Gender and Editorial Outcomes at the American Political Science Review .” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (4): 849–53.Google Scholar
König, Thomas, and Ropers, Guido. 2021. “Replication Data for: How Gendered Is the Peer-Review Process? A Mixed-Design Analysis of Reviewer Feedback.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LMDUEQ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Carole J., Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Zhang, Guo, and Cronin, Blaise. 2013. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengel, Friederike, Sauermann, Jan, and Zölitz, Ulf. 2019. “Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations.” Journal of the European Economic Association 17 (2): 535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, Saif M., and Turney, Peter D.. 2013. “Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexicon.” Computational Intelligence 29 (3): 436–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarsons, Heather. 2017. “Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia.” American Economic Review 107 (5): 141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squazzoni, Flaminio, Bravo, Giangiacomo, Dondio, Pierpaolo, Farjam, Mike, Marusic, Ana, Mehmani, Bahar, Willis, Michael, Birukou, Aliaksandr, and Grimaldo, Francisco. 2020. No Evidence of Any Systematic Bias Against Manuscripts by Women in the Peer-Review Process of 145 Scholarly Journals. SocArXiv, February 28. Accessed June 21, 2021. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/gh4rv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teele, Dawn Langan, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2017. “Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 433–47.Google Scholar
Tomkins, Andrew, Zhang, Min, and Heavlin, William D.. 2017. “Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-Blind Peer Review.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (48): 12708–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wais, Kamil. 2016. genderizeR: Gender Prediction Based on First Names. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=genderizeR.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

König and Ropers Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LMDUEQ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

König and Ropers supplementary material

König and Ropers supplementary material

Download König and Ropers supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 95.3 KB