Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

  title={Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.},
  author={Amber E. Budden and Tom Tregenza and Lonnie W. Aarssen and Julia Koricheva and Roosa Leimu and Christopher J. Lortie},
  journal={Trends in ecology \& evolution},
  volume={23 1},

Figures and Tables from this paper

Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias
The cases for and against double-blind reviews
It is concluded, at least for these journals, that double-blind review no longer benefits female authors and the pros and cons of the double- blind reviewing process are discussed.
Case for the double-blind peer review
A survey of current research suggests that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing any major downsides.
The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews
It is concluded, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental.
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
This study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference and shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.
Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias
The impact of introducing double-blind reviewing in the most recent Evolution of Language conference is assessed. The ranking of papers is compared between EvoLang 11 (double-blind review) and
Response to Whittaker: challenges in testing for gender bias
Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality
The authors’ results revealed no publication bias based on author identity at PRS and double-blinding adds considerable work for authors and editorial staff and has no positive effect on review quality.


Publication bias and merit in ecology
Bias, or any set of factors that influence the general expression of merit, is common in science and is an inevitable by-product of an imperfect but otherwise reasonably objective human pursuit to
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
Review quality was assessed by two editors and the corresponding author, and there was no significant difference in assessment between groups or between editors and authors.
Testing and adjusting for publication bias
How blind is blind review?
  • A. Yankauer
  • Medicine, Psychology
    American journal of public health
  • 1991
Until more definitive data are in, reviewer preference, which differs from journal to journal, seems the most legitimate guide to journal policy on blind review.
Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
Despite explicit instructions to authors, 34% of 880 prospectively evaluated manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that potentially or definitely unblinded the identities of the authors or their institutions.
To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer
Reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double‐blind policy and various alternatives are discovered to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy.
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.
To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted from outside the United United States or from the United States, a retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995 and 1996 is analyzed.
Peer Review—The Newcomers' Perspective
The World Academy of Young Scientists argue that double blind peer-review will generate a better perception of fairness and equality in global scientific funding and publishing
Nepotism and sexism in peer-review
In the first-ever analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications, the system is revealed as being riddled with prejudice. The policy of secrecy in evaluation must be