{"id":28851,"date":"2021-01-07T19:03:29","date_gmt":"2021-01-07T19:03:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.xatakaciencia.com\/psicologia\/analisis-145-revistas-cientificas-no-encuentra-evidencia-sesgo-autoras-proceso-revision-pares"},"modified":"2021-01-07T19:03:29","modified_gmt":"2021-01-07T19:03:29","slug":"un-analisis-de-145-revistas-cientificas-no-encuentra-evidencia-de-sesgo-contra-las-autoras-en-el-proceso-de-revision-por-pares","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/forocilac.org\/en\/un-analisis-de-145-revistas-cientificas-no-encuentra-evidencia-de-sesgo-contra-las-autoras-en-el-proceso-de-revision-por-pares\/","title":{"rendered":"An analysis of 145 scientific journals finds no evidence of bias against female authors in the peer review process"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n \"Un\n <\/p>\n

A analysis of published studies<\/a> in 145 journals from various research fields<\/strong>, including approximately 1.7 million authors and 740,000 reviewers, has found no evidence of bias against female authors in the peer review process.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Academic journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to this.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A tangle of biases<\/h2>\n

In it cited study<\/a> They focused on analyzing three possible sources of bias: <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The editorial selection of the reviewers<\/li>\n
  2. Reviewers' recommendations<\/li>\n
  3. Editorial decisions<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The results showed that studies written by women as sole authors or co-authors were treated even more favorably by reviewers and editors<\/strong>. Although there were some differences between the research fields, the findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize articles written by women. <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    \n
    \n

    \"Erg0sjixiaesghx\"<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    However, as has been said, there are great differences between fields. And even when the review is double-blind, the reviewers can know or guess who the authors are, or gender bias may arise because the editor knows who the authors are<\/strong>. True double-blinding is difficult because of the difficulty in concealing the identities of the main authors (revealed by style, perspective, and citations). <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    For example, women's studies generally received worse reviews in social science journals through single-blind peer review, but these journals are the minority in a field typically dominated by double-blind peer review<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n \"Debido a la COVID, los exámenes de acceso universitario no fueron presenciales y eso hizo que accedieran más mujeres (con un pero)\"
    \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n In Xataka Science<\/a>\n <\/div>\n

    Due to COVID, the university entrance exams were not in person and that meant that more women entered (with a but)<\/a>\n <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    Increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and reviewer groups could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and thus encourage women's participation. However, we face a complex tangle of biases<\/strong>, and shortcutting some could be hiding others, and vice versa:<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n