Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014.
Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi-authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female. Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender-neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.

学界普遍认为，同行评议（peer review）存在诸多偏倚，且易受稿件作者的身份与生平特征（如性别）影响。本研究针对2010至2014年间投稿至《功能生态学（Functional Ecology）》期刊的论文，考察了男女作者的署名模式差异，以及作者性别是否会对编辑与同行评议结果、乃至同行评议整体流程产生影响。
投稿至《功能生态学》的论文中，女性作者约占总作者数的三分之一。相较于整体作者占比，女性作为独立作者的比例偏低（仅26%为女性）。在多作者论文中，女性作为末位/资深作者的占比同样偏低（25%为女性），但作为首位作者的占比偏高（43%为女性）。相较于男性首位作者，女性首位作者担任通讯作者与投稿作者的概率更低；这一差异不受末位作者性别的影响。若末位作者为女性，则论文收录女性作者的概率更高。
相较于男性作者领衔的论文，包含女性作者的论文（i）获得同行评议邀请的概率并无差异，（ii）获得的同行评议评分相当，（iii）被期刊接受发表的概率同样一致。没有证据表明男性编辑或男性审稿人对女性作者的论文与女性编辑、审稿人存在区别对待；也没有证据显示，资深编辑相较于年轻编辑，在稿件评审后或全程评审流程中，对男女作者的论文做出了不同的录用决定。
女性作者的论文更易由女性审稿人完成同行评议，这主要是因为当论文作者为女性时，女性更易受邀承担审稿工作。
投稿至《功能生态学》的论文中，男女作者的署名模式及作者角色（如投稿与担任通讯作者）存在显著差异。但与越来越多的研究结论一致——学术出版流程背后的同行评议大体上不存在性别偏向，该期刊的编辑与同行评议结果并未受作者性别影响。