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.

同行评审（Peer review）是期刊评估学术论文质量与学术价值的核心方式。为协助编辑遴选合适的审稿人，多数期刊允许或要求作者推荐心仪审稿人与非心仪审稿人。尽管作者最了解哪些学者具备审稿资质，但他们也存在强烈动机，倾向推荐预期会对自己论文给出正面评价的审稿人。
本研究以《功能生态学（Functional Ecology）》期刊为研究对象，分析作者推荐的心仪与非心仪审稿人名单、编辑对作者推荐意见的采纳情况，以及作者推荐对同行评审流程与结果的影响。具体而言，我们探究了参与评审流程的三方（作者、编辑与审稿人）的性别如何影响心仪审稿人在同行评审中的作用。
即便期刊未作强制要求，多数作者仍会主动推荐心仪审稿人，但极少有人推荐非心仪审稿人。作者推荐的审稿人中男性占比最高，但女性审稿人的占比在11年间呈上升趋势，从2004年的15%低点升至2014年的25%高点。
男女作者在推荐心仪审稿人的概率上并无显著差异，但女性作者推荐的审稿人中女性占比（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选中。
未发现编辑的性别、任职资历或在《功能生态学》的服务时长会影响其采纳作者推荐意见的概率。在受邀审稿的学者中，经作者推荐的审稿人回复编辑邀请的概率更高，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，作者推荐的审稿人对论文的评价显著高于编辑自行遴选的审稿人，且经作者推荐审稿人评审的论文被邀请修改的概率远高于经编辑遴选审稿人评审的论文。这一差异不受评审流程中参与方性别的影响。
推荐心仪审稿人对作者有利，因为这类审稿人给出的评价远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，心仪审稿人与编辑遴选的审稿人对稿件的评价存在差异，且该差异会对编辑的审稿决策产生显著影响。