Does your gender matter when publishing scientific works? And your affiliation? Yes, both your gender and affiliations can create positive or negative biases when it comes to another researcher reviewing your paper. Biases are a part of our daily lives, shaping our opinions and judgments in ways we might not even realize. In science and research, however, biases can hold back progress significantly and reduce the quality of scientific work. Even so, biases related to the peer review process in scientific journals aren’t well studied. Gender ratios tend to be more equal in journals with double-blinded peer review processes — with the data collection and analysis we carried out on this topic arguably supporting for this form of peer review to become more common.

Our study focused on two possible biases regarding the peer review process: affiliation bias and gender bias. Affiliation bias, also known as prestige bias, is when universities with well-known names, ranks and prestige are represented in journals more often than lesser-known ones. Gender bias is a more researched topic and most studies suggest that diversity, including gender diversity, enhances the quality of scientific works and creates a well-balanced group of researchers with versatile skill sets and knowledge. However, gender ratios in science vary widely across disciplines. Some fields are nearing gender parity among researchers and authors, while others, such as physics and computer science, lag behind  (Holman et al., 2018).

We wanted to see if these biases show up in scientific journals and whether the peer review process allows these biases to influence reviewers' decisions. To do this we compared journals with a single-blinded peer review process and journals with a double-blinded peer review process within two different fields of biology (human behavior and evolution, plant science). 

In a single-blinded peer review, the reviewer stays anonymous while the authors’ information is visible to the reviewer (names, affiliations, etc.), while in a double-blinded peer review both the reviewer and the author(s) stay anonymous, thus eliminating potential biases during the process. Although double-blinded peer review is relatively rare, studies suggest it increases the representation of women-led articles and a survey showed that the majority of respondents would prefer the double-blinded peer review process when their paper is being reviewed (Budden et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2013).

So, does your gender really matter in this situation?

Yes and no. Gender equality in science varies across different fields, and so does gender bias in journals. In our study, we found that gender ratios in journals about human behavior and evolution were pretty balanced, whether they used single-blinded or double-blinded peer review processes. But in plant science, journals with double-blinded peer reviews had much more equal gender ratios compared to those with single-blinded reviews. 

This difference might be because some disciplines are more aware of the concept of biases in general and their effects on scientific works, thus reviewers can be aware and actively work against their biases in order to judge papers fairly.

What about affiliations?

In both fields, there were clear differences between the journals. Those with double-blind peer review processes had the fewest affiliations with high prestige, suggesting that the double-blinded peer review process helps to eliminate affiliation bias. This is an important finding because previous studies have shown that papers from prestigious universities are published more often but cited less frequently, implying that these works may be of lower quality compared to those from lesser-known institutions (Si et al., 2023). It is important not to overrepresent research coming from well-known and prestigious universities based on their ranks because this kind of bias also hinders scientific growth by not spreading possibly more novel and higher quality works from lesser-known affiliations. 

Overall, these findings prove that the double-blinded peer review process should be more widespread because it can eliminate biases during the peer review process and raise more diverse, underrepresented researchers and improve scientific work, especially in certain disciplines where this is still an issue. Previous studies and surveys show no disadvantages to this type of peer review process and, as mentioned, the majority of researchers asked would even prefer it  (Budden et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2013). 

But what can I do about it?

After reading this post you will probably be more aware of your biases and decisions. Other than spreading the word about this behavior, you can raise your voice and advocate for fairer peer review in journals, such as double-blinded peer review, so reviewers can only judge the actual work itself. As a reviewer, study your own biases (maybe even create statistics on yourself) and try to work against your biases to give a fair chance for every paper you review. And as a leader of a research group, the best way to produce more valuable work is to create a diverse team. A diverse group means people of different genders, age groups and cultural and scientific backgrounds. A more diverse team can come up with more creative solutions, have a better workflow, and solve conflicts more easily. (Nielsen et al., 2017; Woolley et al., 2010).

References

• Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
• Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
• Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
• Si, K., Li, Y., Ma, C., & Guo, F. (2023). Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap. Research Policy, 52(7), 104797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104797
• Nielsen, M. W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Joshi, A., Leahey, E., Smith-Doerr, L., Woolley, A. W., & Schiebinger, L. (2017). Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(8), 1740–1742. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700616114
• Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Image by Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock.com