| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 440.65 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
1. Functional Ecology conducted a randomised trial comparing single- and double-
blind peer review; a recent analysis of this data found substantial evidence for
bias by reviewers.
2. We show that this dataset can also be analysed for editor bias, after controlling
for both reviewer bias and paper quality.
3. Our analysis shows that editors tend to be more likely to invite high-scoring man-
uscripts for revision or resubmission when the first author is a man from a coun-
try with a very high Human Development Index (HDI); first authors who were
women or not from very high HDI countries were more likely to be rejected at this
stage.
4. We propose that journals consider a triple-blind review process where neither
editors nor reviewers know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the
identity of reviewers nor editors.
Description
Keywords
equity in science gender nationality publishing ethics scientific review process
Pedagogical Context
Citation
Srivastava, Diane S., et al. «Editors Are Biased Too: An Extension of Fox et al. (2023)’s Analysis Makes the Case for Triple‐blind Review». Functional Ecology, vol. 38, n.o 2, fevereiro de 2024, pp. 278–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14483
Publisher
Wiley