Abstract
The robustness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author’s gender and nationality. To address this, we examine the peer review outcomes of 23,873 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and last authors. We found a homophilic interaction between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors in determining the outcome of peer review; that is, gatekeepers favor manuscripts from authors of the same gender and from the same country, The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes. Similarly, manuscripts were more likely to be accepted when reviewed by at least one gatekeeper with the same national affiliation as the corresponding author. Our results indicated that homogeneity between author and gatekeeper gender and nationality is associated with the outcomes of scientific peer review. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data, have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis.
Author summary Peer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated and developed, is ideally a fair and equitable process, in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between between male and female authors, and between authors in different countries. We investigated such a disparity at the biosciences journal eLife, by analyzing the author and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) demographics and review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. We found evidence of disparity in outcomes that disfavored women and those outside of North America and Europe, and that these groups were underrepresented among, authors and gatekeepers. The gender disparity was greatest when reviewers were all male; mixed-gender reviewer teams lead to more equitable outcomes. Similarly, manuscripts were more likely to be accepted when reviewed by at least one gatekeeper from the same country as the corresponding author. Our results indicated that gatekeeper characteristics are associated with the outcomes of scientific peer review. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications.
