The abstract:
Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.
The data:
12 comments:
Okay. So how do we effectively use this as an educational tool? I'm a fairly junior female scientist in a nearly-all-male government research lab (3 out of 12, which is really pretty good for my line of work). We do government "diversity training" that is unrelated to problems such as this that actually exist in our environment.
If I present this as an EEO activity, it will be received as "oh, the girls are making excuses", I'm afraid. That wouldn't help! So how do we make people aware of these problems without being perceived as whiners?
(And isn't it awful that I even have to ask?)
There is a noticeable culture of sexism in my lab - the less-productive guys get more slack, get promoted more readily, etc. Not from all the senior scientists, at least, but from the one who really counts. (Thus the anonymousness.)
I have to leave, because the janitors want to strip and rewax the floors, but could go on for ages. Constructive suggestions?
Wow. Okay, that makes me mad. So far I have not encountered a journal that uses double-blind reviews in my discipline. Looks like I need to find a reason to submit something to Behavioural Ecology.
Thanks so much for passing this along.
Double-blind review is a no-brainer.
But I would suggest very gently we keep in mind correlation is not the same as causation. Still the data is suggestive: "A difference of 7.9% in the proportion of female first-authored papers following the implementation of double-blind review in BE is three times greater than the recorded increase in female ecology graduates in the USA across the same time period".
Wow.
Of course, some men will use this to say that they need special protections. (Like Christians.)
The journals in my field let the reviewers know the names of the authors, but not vice versa. In my experience, the field's "stars" tend to get an easier ride through the review process than the rest of the crowd. Granted, the stars are usually producing excellent and interesting work, but the effect carries over to their rare papers that are demonstrably poor. Since the stars are historically male, might this explain the effect?
The problem with double-blind is that some authors have styles that are distinctive enough that I can identify them even if their authorship is hidden from me. As a starting researcher, it might be more advantageous to have open reviewing, where everybody knows everyone else's identity.
Even though it is sometimes possible to identify authors by their styles ... especially when combined with their subject matter and their take on it ... I like double blind, it is the most objective!
Although I appreciated it the time I got a piece rejected with detailed objections and the reviewers gave their names. It was nice that they weren't hiding and knowing who they were made it much easier to tell where they were coming from, how much of what they said I wanted to take seriously, etc.
*Usually* they know who I am and I don't know who they are. If they recognize my style there's nothing I can do about it but in general I do not like them to know my name. I should take the advice of my scientist friends who will not reveal gender - they publish as A.B. Smith, etc.
I've heard that orchestral auditions are performed behind a screen, to ensure that hiring decisions are made based on the music played and nothing else. Granted, this may be an urban legend, but if it's true I do wonder how long that has been the standard practice.
Natalie: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q2/0425orch.html
Well, I'm glad to know that wasn't an urban legend. Thanks for the link, anonymous.
Could this change be due to the fact that more women publish now, compared to the past, and that gives the change?
I try not to jump to too many conclusions, but the first graph looks like there isn't too much change going on here.
ookami, this point is discussed in the paper at some length. That's why the authors compare two similar journals, one with and one without blind review.
Many orchestra auditions use screens and require candidates to remove their shoes, since there are some pretty obvious gender identifiers in the different sounds made by men's and (some) women's shoes. Results? Just look at any major US orchestra. When I was a kid in the 50's, the only woman on stage was typically the harpist. No more.
Post a Comment