Study of 8M biomed & life science articles finds those led by women spent 7 to 15 days longer in review than those led by men.
-
Study of 8M biomed & life science articles finds those led by women spent 7 to 15 days longer in review than those led by men. Over a career, women's papers could spend 350 to 750 additional days in review. Delays could slow women's promotion, especially to full professor. https://www.the-scientist.com/women-s-research-papers-spend-longer-under-peer-review-than-men-s-74078
-
Study of 8M biomed & life science articles finds those led by women spent 7 to 15 days longer in review than those led by men. Over a career, women's papers could spend 350 to 750 additional days in review. Delays could slow women's promotion, especially to full professor. https://www.the-scientist.com/women-s-research-papers-spend-longer-under-peer-review-than-men-s-74078
@amydiehl that's some pretty strong data there.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
Study of 8M biomed & life science articles finds those led by women spent 7 to 15 days longer in review than those led by men. Over a career, women's papers could spend 350 to 750 additional days in review. Delays could slow women's promotion, especially to full professor. https://www.the-scientist.com/women-s-research-papers-spend-longer-under-peer-review-than-men-s-74078
@amydiehl I remember a study about perception that had participants read an academic paper and rate it. For the authorship of the paper they used either a male name or a female name, and just initials for the control group. Consistently, the exact same paper was rated lower if they thought it was written by a female author.
-
@amydiehl I remember a study about perception that had participants read an academic paper and rate it. For the authorship of the paper they used either a male name or a female name, and just initials for the control group. Consistently, the exact same paper was rated lower if they thought it was written by a female author.
@kimlockhartga @Su_G @amydiehl I wish this was surprising and unexpected.
️ -
@amydiehl I remember a study about perception that had participants read an academic paper and rate it. For the authorship of the paper they used either a male name or a female name, and just initials for the control group. Consistently, the exact same paper was rated lower if they thought it was written by a female author.
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl Dr. Ben Barres.
-
@amydiehl I remember a study about perception that had participants read an academic paper and rate it. For the authorship of the paper they used either a male name or a female name, and just initials for the control group. Consistently, the exact same paper was rated lower if they thought it was written by a female author.
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl That‘s what I assumed, and why I always abbreviated my name on my scientific papers (as it was common practice then anyway). I know (and also knew then) the disadvantage of this practice, i.e. that those publications and the scientific work reported on would not be attributed to a woman. But I was young then and had to compete on the (then very tight) labour market, especially as regards „good positions“ in science (with space for one‘s own development etc).
-
@amydiehl I remember a study about perception that had participants read an academic paper and rate it. For the authorship of the paper they used either a male name or a female name, and just initials for the control group. Consistently, the exact same paper was rated lower if they thought it was written by a female author.
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl Should reviewing of papers now go the route that orchestra auditioning went, and the reviewer doesn't get any information on who the authors actually are?
-
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl Should reviewing of papers now go the route that orchestra auditioning went, and the reviewer doesn't get any information on who the authors actually are?
@ariaflame @amydiehl maybe? I wonder if that would do anything to change attitudes, though?
-
@ariaflame @amydiehl maybe? I wonder if that would do anything to change attitudes, though?
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl Probably not, but at least the delays on reviews would be mitigated.
-
@kimlockhartga @amydiehl Probably not, but at least the delays on reviews would be mitigated.
@ariaflame @amydiehl that would definitely be an improvement.
-
Study of 8M biomed & life science articles finds those led by women spent 7 to 15 days longer in review than those led by men. Over a career, women's papers could spend 350 to 750 additional days in review. Delays could slow women's promotion, especially to full professor. https://www.the-scientist.com/women-s-research-papers-spend-longer-under-peer-review-than-men-s-74078
@amydiehl Very interesting. They also say most reviewers are men; does it reflect faculty in biomed and life sciences? I’m really wondering what drives this. Ofc it could be neglect, but I can see other explanations. Women often work in subfields considered marginal; as a result, even though they can review more mainstream stuff, researchers working on canon stuff can’t review their stuff. So it could be smaller reviewer pools combined filled with women who are asked to do more reviewing
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
