Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution

16Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The characteristics of referees and the potential subsequent effects on the peer-review process are an important consideration for science since the integrity of the system depends on the appropriate evaluation of merit. In 2006, we conducted an online survey of 1334 ecologists and evolutionary biologists pertaining to the review process. Respondents were from Europe, North America and other regions of the world, with the majority from English first language countries. Women comprised a third of all respondents, consistent with their representation in the scientific academic community. Among respondents we found no correlation between the time typically taken over a review and the reported average rejection rate. On average, Europeans took longer over reviewing a manuscript than North Americans, and females took longer than males, but reviewed fewer manuscripts. Males recommended rejection of manuscripts more frequently than females, regardless of region. Hence, editors and potential authors should consider alternative sets of criteria, to what exists now, when selecting a panel of referees to potentially balance different tendencies by gender or region. © 2008 Grod et al.

References Powered by Scopus

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

418Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Testing and adjusting for publication bias

337Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Questionnaires in ecology: A review of past use and recommendations for best practice

263Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

90Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

87Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Grod, O. N., Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Aarssen, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2008, September 12). Systematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003202

Readers over time

‘09‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 22

39%

Researcher 18

32%

Professor / Associate Prof. 12

21%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41

69%

Environmental Science 13

22%

Social Sciences 3

5%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

3%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0