Data from: Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively. In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process. Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review. Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process. Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions.同行评议（peer review）是期刊评估学术论文质量与学术价值的核心手段。为助力编辑遴选合适的审稿人，多数期刊允许甚至要求作者推荐偏好审稿人与非偏好审稿人。尽管作者理应最清楚哪些学者具备审阅其论文的资质，但他们同时也存在强烈动机，倾向推荐那些他们预期会对论文给出正面评价的审稿人。 本研究以《Functional Ecology》期刊为研究场景，考察作者推荐的偏好与非偏好审稿人、编辑对作者推荐意见的采纳情况，以及作者推荐行为对同行评议流程与最终结果的影响。特别地，本研究聚焦于参与者（作者、编辑与审稿人）的性别如何影响偏好审稿人在同行评议流程中的作用。 即便期刊未作强制要求，多数作者仍会主动推荐偏好审稿人，但极少有人推荐非偏好审稿人。作者推荐的审稿人中男性占比更高，但女性审稿人在作者推荐名单中的占比在11年间有所上升，从2004年的最低15%攀升至2014年的最高25%。 男女作者在推荐偏好审稿人的概率上并无显著差异，但女性作者推荐的审稿人名单中女性占比（年均约28%）高于男性作者（年均约21%）。相较于男性作者推荐的审稿人，女性作者推荐的审稿人更易被编辑遴选为正式审稿人。 未发现证据表明，编辑的性别、职级或在《Functional Ecology》的任职时长会影响其采纳作者推荐意见的概率。在受邀参与审稿的学者中，由作者推荐的审稿人回复编辑审稿邀请的概率更高，但同意接受审稿邀请的概率并未显著提升。 最值得关注的是，作者推荐的偏好审稿人对论文的评分显著高于编辑遴选的审稿人；由偏好审稿人参与评议的论文，相较于编辑遴选审稿人评议的论文，被邀请修改的概率也大幅提升。且该差异不受评议流程中参与者性别的影响。 推荐偏好审稿人对作者有利，因为这类审稿人对论文的评分显著高于编辑遴选的审稿人，从而提升论文的录用概率。期刊及编辑应意识到，偏好审稿人与编辑遴选审稿人的评分标准存在差异，且该差异会对编辑的审稿决策产生重大影响。