IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0003202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

Author

Listed:
  • Olyana N Grod
  • Amber E Budden
  • Tom Tregenza
  • Julia Koricheva
  • Roosa Leimu
  • Lonnie W Aarssen
  • Christopher J Lortie

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Olyana N Grod & Amber E Budden & Tom Tregenza & Julia Koricheva & Roosa Leimu & Lonnie W Aarssen & Christopher J Lortie, 2008. "Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-5, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0003202
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003202
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003202&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0003202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lonnie W Aarssen & Christopher J Lortie & Amber E Budden & Julia Koricheva & Roosa Leimu & Tom Tregenza, 2009. "Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-3, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0003202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.