A Guide to Peer Review in Ecology and Evolution British Ecological

• Journal List
• Ecol Evol
• v.9(24); 2019 Dec
• PMC6953666

Ecol Evol. 2019 December; 9(24): 13636–13649.

Gender variety of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review procedure at six journals of environmental and evolution

Charles W. Trick

¹ Department of Entomology, Academy of Kentucky, Lexington KY, USA,

Meghan A. Duffy

² Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biological science, Academy of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, USA,

Daphne J. Fairbairn

ⁱⁱⁱ Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, University of California, Riverside CA, USA,

Jennifer A. Meyer

^four British Ecological Society, London U.k.,

Received 2019 Jun 7; Revised 2019 Sep 27; Accepted 2019 Oct 5.

Information Availability Statement

An anonymized version of the dataset removing personal identifying information (author names and locations) will be published on Dryad.

Abstract

Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for half-dozen journals in environmental and evolution (2003–2015 for four journals, 2007–2015 or 2009–2015 for the other 2), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female person and male editors and reviewers. Nosotros found that for 5 of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented every bit handling editors at the kickoff of our dataset. The representation of women increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the treatment editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, like to the representation of women as final authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) merely lower than the proportion of women amidst all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37%–40%). The proportion of women amid reviewers has as well gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% past 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with historic period of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, only, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In dissimilarity, women were less likely than men to take invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented amongst the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.

Keywords: bias, discrimination, editorial boards, equality, gender, peer review, scholarly publishing, women in science

Abstract

Nosotros examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in environmental and evolution, and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. Our analyses betoken that there has been progress in the representation of women equally reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, only women are even so underrepresented amidst the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.

ane. INTRODUCTION

The scholarly community has changed dramatically over the terminal century. One notable alter is that women—who were in one case largely denied access to formal grooming in scholarly disciplines or relegated to uncredited or supporting roles (Wellenreuther & Otto, 2016)—now earn a sizeable proportion of graduate degrees (e.g., European Commission, 2015; National Science Foundation, 2015). Despite this progress, women go along to be underrepresented among recipients of science and technology degrees, and remain even more than underrepresented in academic leadership and other positions that decide the scientific agenda (Wellenreuther & Otto, 2016). This extends into the realm of scholarly publication. Women remain underrepresented among reviewers of journal papers (Play tricks, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a; Helmer, Schottdorf, Neef, & Battaglia, 2017; Lerback & Hanson, 2017). Women also remain underrepresented amidst the gatekeepers of scientific publishing; while representation varies substantially among disciplines and amidst journals within disciplines (Amrein, Langmann, Fahrleitner‐Pammer, Pieber, & Zollner‐Schwetz, 2011; Morton & Sonnad, 2007; Topaz & Sen, 2016), when compared to the gender of authors in a periodical, women are underrepresented on editorial boards (Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a; Helmer et al., 2017; Manlove & Belou, 2018; Topaz & Sen, 2016; Wehi, Beggs, & Anderson, 2019), especially at more senior editorial levels, for example, editors in chief (Amrein et al., 2011; Cho et al., 2014). While it is articulate that women are underrepresented as reviewers and editors, nosotros still lack a clear agreement of the causes and consequences of this gender disparity.

Depression female representation on editorial boards can influence the research community in diverse ways. Appointment to an editorial board conveys a degree of prestige that may influence hiring, tenure, or promotion decisions by employers. Appointment to an editorial board also provides opportunities for intellectual growth and networking that can better the quality of a enquiry program and generate novel opportunities (Topaz & Sen, 2016). When editorial boards are male‐dominated, benefits such equally these are disproportionately available to men. In addition, low multifariousness at senior editorial positions can negatively affect the proportion of women at junior editorial positions if the gender of the senior editors influences the recruitment of women to entry‐level editorial positions (Mauleón, Hillán, Moreno, Gómez, & Bordons, 2013). This can in turn impact the diversity of hereafter senior editors (e.thou., editors in chief) if senior editors are chosen from lower editorial ranks, creating a feedback loop maintaining high male representation on editorial boards.

Low gender diversity on journal editorial boards tin also influence multiple aspects of scholarly publishing. Men and women can differ in their experiences and values (though there is tremendous variation inside groups and overlap betwixt them), which tin can influence their research interests and/or perspectives on scientific priorities. Differences in experiences between men and women might explain differences in perspectives toward the fairness of peer review (Bacchelli & Beller, 2017; Ho et al., 2013) and open access publishing (Alzahrani, 2010), perspectives that influence periodical management decisions. Demographic diversity also promotes intellectual diversity, altering enquiry trajectories even within subdisciplines (Stewart & Valian, 2018). For case, social status influences how people perceive others; however, it was only after women entered psychology in substantial numbers that studies considered how gender modulates that outcome (Stewart & Valian, 2018). Given this, poor representation of women amidst the scientific gatekeepers is likely to reduce the diversity of ideas, perspectives, and values that make information technology to print: increased representation of women might change which types of manuscripts are accustomed for publication, which areas are identified every bit worthy of invited reviews, which papers are selected to exist highlighted by commentaries, and who is chosen to write those commentary and perspective pieces. Invited perspectives are disproportionately written by men (Baucom, Geraldes, & Rieseberg, 2019; Conley & Stadmark, 2012). Function of this may result from differences in the social and professional networks of men and women (McDonald, 2011; McPherson, Smith‐Lovin, & Cook, 2001), which likely influences who is selected to contribute invited papers or to review for the journal, especially when editors choose from among people they know or at least have interacted with. Men and women can likewise differ (on average) in the criteria they use when choosing prospective reviewers for peer review. For example, male editors generally consider reviewer status more highly during reviewer selection than do female editors (Grod, Lortie, & Budden, 2010), and some evidence suggests that male editors of ecology journals cull fewer women as reviewers than practice female editors (Buckley, Sciligo, Adair, Instance, & Monks, 2014; Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a; Helmer et al., 2017; Lerback & Hanson, 2017) and that this difference varies with editor age (Fob, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a).

Being underrepresented in reviewer populations tin can influence the career development of scientists if, for example, reviewing provides positive benefits such as an opportunity to develop research evaluation skills or make positive impressions on editors (Lerback & Hanson, 2017), or if it leads to women being invited to serve on editorial boards. Information technology is also of import because it signals to the person who is asked to review that they are a respected member of their field (Lerback & Hanson, 2017), and considering having fewer women reviewers can lead to fewer women writing perspective pieces, which shape the field and betoken a level of prominence for the author (Baucom et al., 2019). Gender differences in reviewer selection might also influence the peer review process if women review differently than do men. Women might take different views on the strengths and weaknesses of a written report, and some studies suggest that female reviewers are more probable to recommend rejection than are male reviewers (Borsuk et al., 2009; Wing, Benner, Petersen, Newcomb, & Scott, 2010), though others do not observe this (Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a; Fox, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, 2016b and references therein).

Thus, at that place is clear evidence that women are underrepresented among editor and reviewer populations, and this likely influences both what gets published and the career progression of women. Despite that, we still do not fully understand the causes and consequences of female underrepresentation because few studies have examined how gender of editors or reviewers influences any particular aspect of the peer review procedure. In a previous written report of one journal, Functional Ecology, Flim-flam, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) observed that the gender and historic period of handling editors predicted the proportion of women invited to review for the journal (female editors invited more women to review, with the gender difference increasing with editor age) and the responses of those invitees to the review invitation (e.thousand., women were more likely to concord to review than were men). However, that study examined merely a single journal and the caste to which those observations can exist generalized is unclear.

In this study, we examine the gender diversity of editorial boards and its relationship with reviewer recruitment at half dozen ecology and evolution journals—Development, Functional Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Practical Ecology, Journal of Ecology, and Methods in Ecology and Evolution, all of which are highly ranked journals (due east.chiliad., all ranked in the top 25 past impact factor in the "ecology" category, with 2015 touch on factors >four.0). We examine how the gender ratio of the editorial boards of these six journals has varied over time, exam whether editor gender predicts the proportion of women that are invited and/or concord to review, examine how responses to review invitations differ between male and female person invitees to review and examine how editor age mediates observed differences between male and female person editors and reviewers. For a subset of the journals, we as well look at gender differences in responses to invitations to join editorial boards.

2. METHODS

two.1. The peer review dataset

All half dozen journals examined here employ ScholarOne Manuscripts (previously Manuscript Central) to manage submissions and peer review. Nosotros extracted peer review data for all manuscripts submitted betwixt ane January 2003 and 30 June 2015 for Functional Environmental, J Creature Environmental, J Practical Ecology, and J Environmental, between Baronial thirteen, 2009, and June 30, 2015, for Methods in Ecology and Evolution (this journal received its start ever submission on August xiii, 2009), and betwixt May 20, 2007, and December 31, 2015, for Evolution (Development began using ScholarOne Manuscripts to manage for submissions in May 2007). We included in our dataset only standard research papers (called a "Research Article" at Methods in Ecology and Evolution, an "Original Article" at Evolution, and a "Standard Paper" at the other journals); we excluded review papers, commentaries, perspectives, editorials, brief communications, and other types of papers not considered typical full‐length inquiry manuscripts. We considered only the first submission of a paper; papers invited for revisions were excluded, even if sent for a 2d circular of peer review. Resubmissions of papers following rejection were considered in our dataset if they got a new manuscript number and were sent for new peer review. Additional details about the dataset are described in Fox and Paine (2019).

Our dataset includes 133,431 reviewer names selected by editors every bit potential reviewers, for forty,420 standard research papers. Of these selected reviewers, 113,687 were invited to review and 54,912 agreed to review.

2.2. Variables in our dataset

For each manuscript that fits the criteria divers above, we take information on whether the newspaper was assigned to an associate editor, whether it was sent for peer review, the names of all reviewers selected as potential reviewers past that editor (if entered into ScholarOne Manuscripts), whether (and when) each selected reviewer was invited, whether (and when) they responded to the invitation, whether they agreed, and whether they actually submitted a review. Reviewers are recorded as having non responded to an invitation if either a "no response" was specifically recorded or if the reviewer is listed as invited but has no response recorded or review submitted; this differs slightly from Play a joke on, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) who treated empty cells as unknown and did non analyze reviewer response rates pre‐2007 due to the large number of empty cells.

2.3. Inferring gender

Nosotros inferred binary genders for reviewers in our dataset. However, we acknowledge that gender is a spectrum and that people define their ain gender identity; because of this, our inferences may take been inaccurate in some cases, and we hash out the potential for this to cause harm in the Discussion. Nosotros used a 2‐footstep process. We first entered given names into an online database (https://genderize.io) that includes >200,000 unique names from 79 countries and 89 languages (every bit of Nov 2016). The database returns the most probable gender for each given name, forth with a probability of the most common gender given that name (estimated from the known individuals included in the database). Genderize performs very well for names in western countries (Karimi, Wagner, Lemmerich, Jadidi, & Strohmaier, 2016), merely includes few nonwestern names. For names that were not found in https://genderize.io, or that were found only had a probability <0.95, we used Internet searches to infer the gender of the private. We searched for personal web pages or entries in online databases (such every bit profiles on Google Scholar, https://www.Mendeley.com, https://www.ResearchGate.com, Twitter, or Facebook) that included a photograph of the individual, or for news stories that made mention of the individual using gender‐specific pronouns such as "he" or"she". We inferred gender for 132,602 of 133,449 reviewer entries in our dataset; the rest are of unknown gender and excluded from analyses of reviewer gender.

2.iv. Editor seniority

We identified the year in which each editor obtained their PhD from their CVs or personal spider web pages, or by using online thesis archiving tools such equally ProQuest's Dissertations & Theses, British Library EThOS, or similar sites for other countries. We were able to obtain exact dates for almost all past editors; for the rest, we estimated their PhD award date from their publication address history. We calculated Editor Seniority every bit the year of interest (the submission yr of a manuscript they handled equally editor) minus their PhD graduation year.

two.5. Statistical analyses

Most of the response variables examined here were binary; for instance, gender [male/female] or invited/agreed to review [yes/no], and so were analyzed using logistic regression (SAS Proc Glimmix with dist = binomial). The just variable that was not binary is the time it took reviewers to answer to the review invitation, which was analyzed using general linear models (SAS Proc GLM). All analyses were of the grade DependentVariable =Year+IndependentVariables +TwoWayInteractions. Farther details are described equally necessary as results are presented.

Notation that some of the specific parameter estimates presented here differ slightly from those presented for Functional Ecology in Fox, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) because the dataset used hither is larger and has pocket-size corrections throughout. The increase in data quality is small, and the modify in parameter estimates is likewise very small. Thus, the current contribution augments, rather than supplants, Fox, Burns, and Meyer (2016a).

3. RESULTS

3.1. Gender diversity of journal editors

For five of the half dozen journals we studied, the proportion of women amongst editors was very pocket-size at the beginning of our dataset, and gradually only consistently increased over time (Figure ​ 1). In 2003 and 2004, nearly all editors treatment manuscripts for Functional Environmental, J Animal Ecology, and J Applied Ecology were male (Figure ​ 1). These journals were each edited by a small team of editors (three or four people at a time), none of whom were female—each had an "editorial review lath" on which some women served, merely these boards advised editors and occasionally reviewed papers simply did not handle papers as editors. Nonetheless, these journals switched editorial models in 2005, 2006, and 2004, respectively, to one in which Associate Editors choose reviewers for peer review and make determination recommendations to senior editors. Women were recruited as Associate Editors from the starting time of these editorial boards, only the boards were nonetheless very male‐dominated in the early years. J Ecology, in contrast, had a board of Acquaintance Editors that predates 2003 and had some (although few) women handling manuscripts from the start of our dataset. Methods in Ecology and Evolution commencement received submissions in belatedly 2009, with the first female editors handling manuscripts for the journal the following year.

For five of the six journals, the proportion of treatment editors that were female was very low at the offset of the dataset, just improved over fourth dimension. An editor was counted if they selected the reviewers for at least one manuscript that was submitted during the indicated year, irrespective of the number of papers they handled or their official appointment catamenia (nosotros practise not take engagement dates for most editors)

The journal Evolution has operated under an editorial lath model since its first event in 1947 and had >35% female editorial board members in the primeval years (2007–2011) of our dataset, though this dipped below 30% in 2014.

Women made upwards <35% of the individuals handling reviewer selection and conclusion recommendations at all of these journals in 2015, the most recent twelvemonth in our dataset. At iii of the journals, <30% of the treatment editors in 2015 were women (Effigy ​ ane).

3.ii. Gender diversity of reviewers

The proportion of women amongst invitees to review varied among the vi journals, just was low (<25%) for all of the journals in the start year the periodical is present in our dataset (Effigy ​ 2a). This was truthful even at Evolution, which had the highest proportion of female handling editors until recently. The low proportion of women among invited reviewers translates into low proportions of women among the agreed reviewers (Figure ​ 2b). However, the gender ratio of invited and agreed reviewers has been slowly but fairly consistently increasing over time at all of the journals, such that between 21% and 33% of all invited reviewers (Effigy ​ 2a) and between 23% and 36% of all agreed reviewers (Effigy ​ 2b) were female by 2015.

The proportion of invited reviewers that are women has been steadily increasing over time for half-dozen ecology and evolution journals. The mean sexual activity ratio of invited reviewers varies among journals, simply the rate of increase over time is similar among journals. This figure includes just individuals of known gender. Note that the specific parameter estimates presented for Functional Ecology here and in subsequent figures differ (though only slightly) from those presented in Fox, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) due to improved genderization of the data and farther error correction that was done betwixt that study and this one

In a previous report, Play a joke on, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) found that female person editors of Functional Ecology invited more women to review than did male editors of that journal. Here, nosotros see that this pattern is general—female editors, on average, invite i.27 times every bit many women to exist reviewers as do male editors (averaged across journals and years; Effigy ​ 3). However, this divergence varies amidst journals (significant Periodical *EditorGender interaction; Figure ​ 3). In dissever analyses for each journal (model: ReviewerGender [f/m] = Twelvemonth +EditorGender+ interaction, with HandlingEditorID as a random result), we see that female editors include more women among their invited reviewers at all journals except J Applied Environmental (EditorGender effect: χ i 2 > 4.9, p < .03 for all except J Practical Ecology, for which χ 1 two = 0.00, p = .99).

Female editors invite more women to review than do male editors at five of the six journals in our dataset (all except the Journal of Applied Ecology). Model: ReviewerGender [f/m] = Year +Journal+ EditorGender + 2‐manner interactions, with HandlingEditorID as a random effect; EditorGender: χ 1 two = 22.3, p < .001; Journal *EditorGender: χ v two = 12.2, p = .03). Annotation that, the higher variance in estimates for female editors, peculiarly in the earlier years, is because there were few female editors treatment papers and so sampling error was high (east.1000., only 1 of 18 handling editors was female for J. Environmental in 2003)

The previous report by Trick, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) besides found that the seniority of the treatment editor (defined as years postal service‐PhD) influenced the proportion of women invited as reviewers, but that this effect differed between male and female editors—more senior female person editors included a higher proportion of women amid their invited reviewers compared to less senior female editors, whereas more senior male editors included a lower proportion of women among their invited reviewers than did younger male editors. Here, nosotros detect that this ascertainment holds upwards when considering multiple journals (Figure ​ 4)—the proportion of women among invited reviewers inverse with editor seniority differently for male and female editors (model: ReviewerGender [f/g] = Journal +Yr+ EditorGender +EditorSeniority+ ii‐way interactions, with EditorSeniority treated as a covariate; EditorGender *EditorSeniority interaction: χ 1 2 = nine.9, p = .002). Specifically, the proportion of women amidst invitees to review increased with seniority for female person editors (t _20,448 = 3.67, p < .001) just did not change significantly with seniority for male editors (though the slope was negative; t _90,674 = −ane.58, p = .11; Figure ​ iv), such that the departure in the proportion of women invited by female and male editors increased with editor seniority. Still, the big difference betwixt senior male person and senior female editors does not account for all of the departure in the proportion of women invited by male and female editors; if we constrain our dataset to include merely younger editors, the gender difference (women invite more female reviewers) persists for all age categories (editors <twenty years seniority, p < .001; <15 years, p < .001; <10 years, p = .01).

The proportion of women among invited reviewers varies with editor seniority (years since PhD), simply this variation is dissimilar for men and women. On average, more than senior women invite more women reviewers, but more senior men invite fewer women reviewers. Values presented in the figure are averages, first averaging beyond editors within each journal*twelvemonth combination, then across years within each journal, and then across journals

3.3. Reviewer responses to review invitations

The proportion of reviewers responding to a review invitation (i.e., either by email or by clicking the link provided in the emailed invitation), and agreeing to review if they respond, varied amongst journals and over time (details in Fox, 2017; Play a joke on, Albert, & Vines, 2017a). On average across all journals, we meet no evidence that reviewer gender predicts how likely an invitee is to respond to the review invitation (Figure ​ A1).

Women that responded to the e-mail invitation were more likely to agree to review than were men that responded to the email invitation (Figure ​ 5), such that the overall representation of women among agreed reviewers was higher than their representation among invited reviewers. Equally with other variables examined, we run across a significant Journal *ReviewerGender interaction (Effigy ​ v) simply, in divide analyses for each journal, the gender deviation is statistically significant (at p < .02) for all except Methods in Ecology and Development (for which p = .46). For the five journals for which we encounter a difference, women agree to review on average 58.four% of the time (averaged beyond years within journals and then across journals) whereas men agreed just 55.3% of the time, an absolute difference of merely 3.1%, but a relative increase in the proportion agreeing to review of five.v% (or a relative decrease in the proportion failing to review of 7.0%).

Women agree to review more often than do men, though the departure is pocket-sized and there is substantial variation across years and among journals in the magnitude of this difference. This figure shows the proportion of male versus female person respondents that agreed to review for the 5 journals published by the British Ecological Guild, plus Evolution; see Figure ​ A1 for data on the likelihood of responding to the invitation electronic mail. Model: ReviewerAgreed [y/n] = Year +Journal+ ReviewerGender + two‐way interactions; Year: χ 1 two = 870.6, p < .001; Journal: χ 5 two = 166.2, p < .001; ReviewerGender: χ 1 2 = 28.1, p < .001; Year *Journal: χ 5 2 = 173.ane, p < .001; Year *ReviewerGender: χ ane 2 = 9.3, p = .67; Periodical *ReviewerGender: χ v 2 = 15.half-dozen, p = .006)

Averaged across years and journals, 94.4% of agreed reviewers submitted a review to the periodical. This number varied slightly across journals (χ 1 2 = 30.0, p < .001; range: 92.8%–95.5%) and over time (though not consequent in management; χ 1 2 = 39.0, p < .001) but non between male and female reviewers (review submission rate for male and female reviewers, averaged across years and journals, was 94.3% and 95.0%, respectively, χ 1 2 = 2.96, p = .09).

3.iv. Does editor gender or age predict reviewer recruitment?

In a previous assay of Functional Ecology review invitations, Play tricks, Burns, and Meyer (2016a) observed that male invitees to review were slightly (but statistically significantly) less likely to respond to the review invitation and slightly less likely to agree if they responded, when the inviting editor was female rather than male. Female invitees to review did not respond differently to male versus female person editors. However, when we consider all six journals we meet petty evidence that this gender difference is full general; averaged beyond journals, reviewers were non more likely to respond to review requests from male editors, regardless of reviewer gender (Effigy ​ A2), nor were they more likely to agree to review if the editor was male (Figure ​ 6; statistics in figure legends). When we evaluate individual journals, there was no individual journal for which invitees to review were more likely to respond to the review invitation when the editor was of their aforementioned gender (ReviewerGender‐×‐EditorGender interaction; χ one 2 < 0.55, p > .46 for all journals). The proportion of respondents (those that responded to the review invitation) that agreed to review was higher when the editor was the aforementioned sex equally the reviewer at Functional Ecology (every bit previously reported past Fox, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a), but this was not the case at the other journals (χ ane 2 < 0.22, p > .64 for all except 1 journal); for J Appl Ecol, reviewers of both genders were more than likely to agree to review when the editor was male only the effect size differed between male person and female reviewers (χ i two = 4.05, p = .044).

Averaged across all six journals, handling editor gender did not influence the likelihood that the respondent would agree to review. Means (±SEM) are averages across journals. Sample sizes for female editors are pocket-sized in the earlier years. Notation that, the EditorGender*ReviewerGender interaction is significant in a logistic regression (Model: Respond [y/n] = Year +Journal+ EditorGender +ReviewerGender+ 2‐way interactions; EditorGender*ReviewerGender, χ ane two = 5.14, p = .02) merely split analyses for male and female reviewers (Model: Respond [y/n] = Year +Journal+ EditorGender + 2‐way interactions) fail to detect a significant influence of EditorGender on responses of either male reviewers (χ 1 2 = ane.03, p = .31) or female person reviewers (χ one two = 0.11, p = .74). All analyses include HandlingEditorID equally a random effect

Information technology was observed previously for Functional Ecology (Pull a fast one on, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a) that more senior (i.e., older) editors had greater difficulty recruiting reviewers compared with younger editors. In our expanded dataset of six journals, we exercise non notice that the proportion of invitees that responded to e-mail invitations (χ one two = 8.3, p = .53) or the proportion of respondents that agreed to review (χ i 2 = 2.6, p = .11) varied with editor seniority (total model: ReviewerResponse [y/n] = Journal +Year+ EditorGender +ReviewerGender +EditorSeniority + 2‐way interactions, with EditorSeniority treated as a covariate). There was a meaning Journal *EditorSeniority interaction for the proportion that agreed if responded (χ i 2 = 22.9, p < .001) but, in separate analyses for each journal, the editor seniority effect was statistically significant for only one journal (χ i 2 = five.4, p = .02; p > .12 for the rest).

3.5. Recruiting editors

In dissimilarity to the observation that women were more likely to agree to review than were men (see above), women were less probable to concord to join periodical editorial boards than were men (model Response [y/n] = Journal +Gender; Gender: χ ane 2 = 4.iv, p = .04). At J Environmental, 92% of men invited to join their editorial board every bit an Acquaintance Editor agreed whereas merely 83% of women agreed (2012 to early 2016; due north = 47). At Functional Environmental, 76% of men accepted the invitation whereas only 69% of invited women accustomed (2005–2016, just includes but invitations sent by C. Fox; n = 205). At Evolution, 62% of invited men just only 52% of women agreed (2006–2015, spanning 3 dissimilar editors in primary; n = 316). None of these differences are large, only they are consistent in direction—women are 9%–sixteen% (relative probability) less likely to join journal editorial boards of these journals when invited. Unfortunately, data are not available for the other 3 journals, nor for years outside those indicated above, due to differences in journal and editor record keeping procedures.

In 2017, the British Ecological Society (BES) published an "Open Acquaintance Editor Recruitment" to recruit new Associate Editors for its five journals. The recruitment was advertised at many ecological conferences (including conferences in multiple countries in Europe, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, and China), through mailings to social club membership and subscribers to journal tables of contents, on a multifariousness social media platforms (including using the hashtags #womeninSTEM and #womeninscience), and on the Society's website. In total, 351 people from 48 countries applied to join i of the journals as an Associate Editor. Averaged beyond journals, only 27.2% of applicants were women (range across the five BES journals: 14.3%–47.6%). 36.3% of the new Associate Editor appointees were women (range: 31.3%–40.0%).

Similar gender distributions have been observed for BES Senior Editor recruitment. Between 2014 and belatedly 2017, the BES advertised seven times for new Senior Editors. Between 0% and 57% of applicants for these Senior Editor, positions were women (boilerplate = 26.8%), and iii of the seven new Senior Editor appointments were women.

4. DISCUSSION

Women have historically been underrepresented among editors and reviewers in scholarly journals. In this study, we examined (a) the gender diverseness of the editorial and reviewer populations for 6 high impact cistron journals in ecology and evolution and (b) how gender of editors and reviewers relates to several aspects of the peer review procedure. Our key results are (1) the proportion of women among journal editors was historically very low for five of the vi journals examined (all except Development), only has gradually and consistently increased at these v journals such that women made up 21%–35% of the editors that chose reviewers for these journals in 2015; (2) the proportion of women amongst reviewers has also gradually but fairly consistently increased over time, with women comprising only 17% (averaged across journals) of invited reviewers in 2003 only 27% past 2015; (three) female editors include approximately 1.3 times as many women amongst their invited reviewers compared to male editors, but this difference varies with the age of the editor (it is larger for older editors) and amongst journals; (iv) in that location was no gender difference in the proportion of invitees to review that responded to the invitation merely, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review; and (v) women are less likely to have invitations to serve on journal editorial boards than are men.

4.1. Gender diversity of editorial boards

Despite being well‐represented among recipients of graduate degrees in the sciences, women are underrepresented on editorial boards relative to their frequency amongst authorships in the equivalent discipline throughout much of scholarly publishing (Cho et al., 2014, Helmer et al., 2017; Ioannidou & Rosania, 2015; Topaz & Sen, 2016). This underrepresentation was particularly substantial on the early editorial boards for five of the half-dozen journals examined here (all except Development). Nevertheless, the representation of women has been steadily improving at these journals, with women representing ~29% of Associate Editors (averaged across journals) at these six journals as of 2015. The increase in the representation of women on editorial boards seen hither is like to that observed for other journals in ecology (data at the Gatekeepers Project; http://brunalab.org/gatekeepers), about of which accept ~xx%–40% female person editors as of 2015.

Information technology is unclear what specific proportion of women is expected on editorial boards to reflect their representation in the ecology and/or evolution communities. Though women currently obtain graduate degrees in the life sciences in similar numbers equally men, this has non e'er been the case (Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014). This alter in the number of women getting graduate degrees, and that women as well are more likely to leave science than are men (Adamo, 2013; Goulden, Stonemason, & Frasch, 2011; Stewart & Valian, 2018), lead the representation of women to differ essentially between older versus younger scientists (Débarre, Rode, & Ugelvig, 2018; Martin, 2012; Stewart & Valian, 2018). But we can at to the lowest degree speculate on gender ratios that set reasonable targets. For example, women represented 34% of all authors of papers published in Functional Ecology in 2014 (averaged across all positions; Fox, Burns, Muncy, et al., 2016b), about the same as the proportion of women on the editorial board of this journal as of 2014–2015 (35%–36%). Across the broader ecology literature, women were ~31% of all authors between 2010 and 2015 (Fox, Ritchey, & Paine, 2018). Yet, women were simply ~23% of last authors on papers during this same period (Pull a fast one on et al., 2018); last authors are commonly the "senior" writer, that is, the principal investigator or enquiry supervisor (Duffy, 2017), which may better reflect the puddle of people from which new editors are being selected. Indeed, 23% is close to the proportion of women that applied for a senior editor position at 1 of the British Ecological Society (BES) journals between 2004 and 2007 (27%) or responded to the BES's open call for new Acquaintance Editors (also 27%). However, these gender ratios are essentially lower than the proportion of women in the broader ecological community. For case, the membership of British Ecological Society, which owns five of the journals examined here, was 39.9% women in 2014 (http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/making-environmental-for-all-part-2), and the membership of the comparable N American social club, the Ecological Society of America, was 37% as of 2010 (Beck, Boersma, Tysor, & Middendorf, 2014). In 2016, twoscore% of all members of the Club for the Written report of Development (which publishes Evolution) were women, but only 33% of nonstudent members were women (Débarre et al., 2018), very close to the proportion of editors that handled papers for Evolution in 2015. Representation of women that fairly reflects the broader customs of people qualified to exist editors likely falls somewhere inside this wide range of gender ratios.

The representation of women on journal editorial boards varied quite substantially among the half-dozen journals examined here (a 13 percentage point departure from high to low in 2015). Well-nigh strikingly, nosotros run across that women take been well‐represented (at to the lowest degree compared with the other journals) for many years at Evolution, whereas equivalent female representation has only recently been achieved at the other journals. Even within the v journals published by the British Ecological Society, in that location is substantial variation in the gender ratios of their editorial boards. Interestingly, this variation reflects, at least roughly, similar variation among the specialties of ecology in the frequency of women as authors. For example, women are better represented every bit authors amongst well-nigh plant ecology subdisciplines, and among conservation biologists, than they are among vertebrate ecologists, mathematical ecologists, or statisticians (http://www.eigenfactor.org), concordant with the pattern of variation amid journals that target these various communities. Given the variation in the proportion of women in various subcommunities of ecology and development, we should be cautious earlier passing judgment on the variation among journals in representation of women on their editorial boards. It would be particularly interesting to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in some subdisciplines.

Our data suggest that women are less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on editorial boards. Though our information were express to only three journals—Functional Ecology, Journal of Ecology and Evolution—and limited to invitations sent past just five editors in master, we nonetheless consistently observed that women were more likely than men to decline invitations to join editorial boards. Information technology thus requires, on boilerplate across journals, invitations to ~1.5 women to recruit ane new female person editor, merely only invitations to 1.3 men to recruit i new male editor. Though non a large difference, if equal numbers of men and women are invited to join a board, the observed departure in credence rate would pb to the proportion of men on the lath exceeding women by ~vii percentage points.

We suspect that women are more than likely to decline editor invitations because they have a greater number of other commitments and responsibilities than do men. At that place is a large torso of evidence indicating that female scientists, especially those who have families, take greater demands on their time than do male scientists (Ledin, Bornmann, Gannon, & Wallon, 2007). Explanations provided in emails declining editor invitations suggest big differences in the types of commitments that lead men and women to decline an invitation. Of fifty emails declining the invitation to join the Functional Ecology editorial board (those even so retained by C. Play a trick on), 67% of men but only 38% of women invoked other editorial responsibilities as a major reason for declining the invitation (and 21% of men simply only 4% of women mentioned the need for a break from previous editorial responsibilities), whereas 71% of women only only 21% of men referenced other noneditorial responsibilities that limited their time available to piece of work as an editor (two women merely no men specifically mentioned nonwork responsibilities; five people provided more than than one explanation, and thus the totals add upwardly to more 100%). These differences may reflect how men and women draw their commitments, but they are also consistent with the common narrative that women accept more personal and/or professional demands on their time other than working as an editor (Stewart & Valian, 2018).

four.ii. Gender diversity of reviewers

As with editors, the proportion of women amid individuals invited to review for these six journals has been steadily increasing over time. Interestingly, as of 2015 women are nigh equally represented among reviewers every bit they are among editors—27% versus 29%, respectively (averaged across journals). As discussed above, it is not articulate what proportion of women amongst reviewers would reflect representation equal to that of women in the ecological community. However, given that the pool of reviewers tends to include more early career scientists (as compared to editors), and that women are amend represented amidst early career ecologists (Stewart & Valian, 2018), nosotros would expect greater representation of women amid reviewers than editors.

Female person editors include more than women among their invited reviewers than do male person editors; this departure was observed for all journals except J Applied Ecology. This difference in the proportion of women invited to review was greatest for older editors and everyman for younger editors; the proportion of women amidst invited reviewers increased with seniority (age postal service‐PhD) of female person editors but not male editors (for whom the slope was negative, although non statistically significant). Both of these results generalize findings previously reported for Functional Ecology (Play tricks, Burns, & Meyer, 2016a). This gender deviation in reviewer recruitment with editor seniority could be caused by differences in professional networks betwixt senior men and women if editors choose reviewers based on personal experience. Or information technology might issue from an effort by more senior women scientists to involve women in the review process, maybe in a witting effort to promote women in science. Regardless of the cause, these findings propose a path toward improving the gender balance of reviewers. Journals can emphasize to their editorial boards the intellectual benefits to the field of having diverse reviewers. They should also highlight the observation that male editors and particularly senior male editors tend not to invite as many women and discourage editors from selecting reviewers based entirely on personal experience (which necessarily leads to a bias against the less senior but more diverse population of available reviewers). They can also advise concrete strategies for identifying more women who would exist qualified reviewers, such as using online publication databases or reference sections of papers to identify newly publishing authors. When editors exercise identify prospective reviewers from personal experience, they can wait for postdoctoral scientists working with those established scientists to identify earlier career scientists with relevant expertise to invite as reviewers.

iv.3. Moving past a gender binary

Enquiry on gender diversity among editors and reviewers is important because it quantifies gender discrepancies and can provide insights into the causes and consequences of inequities in the publishing organization. Still, for practical reasons, enquiry on gendered outcomes in the publication and grant review process generally impose a gender binary, often based on a person's name (due east.yard., Cox & Montgomerie, 2019; Débarre et al., 2018; Trick, Burns, Muncy, & Meyer, 2017b; Fox et al., 2018). Nevertheless, nonbinary and transgender scientists are likewise members of our customs (Yoder & Mattheis, 2016); treating gender equally binary, and ignoring nonbinary and transgender scientists in our analyses, may send the bulletin that they exercise non belong or are not office of our science, a message we do not wish to send. Misgendering of individuals also contributes to the excess stress that members of minoritized groups face, which can pb to reduced participation (McLemore, 2015). And, treating gender equally binary ignores an important component of gender variety in scientific publishing, i for which researcher biases and a history of discrimination are especially acute. Future enquiry should consider gender diversity more broadly and inclusively. To that stop, journals, professional societies, and funding bodies (such as the Us National Science Foundation) should brainstorm collecting data on gender in a way that recognizes nonbinary gender diversity (run into Broussard, Warner, & Pope, 2018 and Montague‐Hellen, 2018 for discussions on how to query near gender in surveys).

5. CONCLUSIONS

Since 2006, women take earned almost half of all doctorates in the biological sciences in the United States (National Science Foundation, 2019). Despite this, women remain much less than half of the population of editors and reviewers of scholarly publications. We explored some of the potential causes and consequences of this pattern, and how gender diversity of editors and reviewers has changed over time, using a dataset from six ecology and development journals. Our results suggest a drinking glass that is half total and half empty. 1 of the encouraging patterns is that the proportion of reviewers and editors who are women has increased consistently over time. By 2015, women were relatively well‐represented on editorial boards (29% of the editors in our dataset) compared with their representation in the reviewer pool (27% in our dataset) and in the pool of last authors of environmental papers (23% in an assay of papers published from 2010–2015; Flim-flam et al., 2018). On the glass‐one-half‐empty side, women were underrepresented as reviewers (27% in 2015 in our dataset) compared to the pool of authors (31% women authors across all author positions; Fox et al., 2018) of ecology papers published betwixt 2010 and 2015, just especially compared with the membership of the societies that publish these journals (British Ecological Society and the Ecological Society of America, which were 40% and 37% women, respectively, in the afterwards periods of our database). However, the representation of women in these societies is lower among nonstudents than among students (Martin, 2012), and then the under‐representation of women is non every bit extreme every bit comparing to lodge memberships would advise; for instance, women brand up 40% of all members of the Society for the Study of Development (which publishes Evolution), but only 33% of nonstudent members (Débarre et al., 2018). Educating editors on these widespread gender differences in reviewer recruitment, and encouraging editors to use a diversity of approaches (rather than relying primarily on personal experience) to identify prospective reviewers, and especially encouraging editors to place junior scientists that tin exist recruited every bit reviewers, will promote greater equality of participation in the scholarly peer review process.

Disharmonize OF Involvement

The authors have no competing interests.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

CWF and JAM collected the data, CWF analyzed the data, CWF and MAD wrote the manuscript, and JAM and DJF commented on the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The British Ecological Society and the Society for the Study of Evolution provided permission to access their databases and funding to back up this project. Nosotros thank Marking Rausher, and Ruth Shaw (Evolution) and David Gibson (J Ecology) for sharing their editor invitation and response rates. Katie Simmons assisted with extracting the reviewer database for Evolution. Emilie Aimé, Christopher Grieves, Kate Harrison, Simon Hoggart, Erika Newton, Alice Plane, James Ross, and Leila Walker extracted the reviewer databases for the BES journals. Josiah Ritchey revised the R code (shared with us by C. Sean Burns) for submitting reviewer given names to genderize.io. Emilie Aimé, Emilio Bruna, J.W. Hammond, Jenny Meyer, and Josiah Ritchey provided comments on earlier versions of this paper or these analyses. This work was approved past the University of Kentucky'south Institutional Review Board (IRB xv‐0890) and was supported in office by the Kentucky Agronomical Research Station at the Academy of Kentucky.

APPENDIX 1.

Effigy A1

The proportion of invited reviewers that respond to review invitations for the 5 environmental journals published past the British Ecological Lodge, plus Development. On boilerplate, women are less likely to respond to the invitation to review, but the departure is small-scale and varies across journals. Model: ReviewerRespond[y/north] = Year + Periodical + ReviewerGender + 2‐way interactions; Year: x ² ₁₂ = 174.0, p < .001; Journal: x ² ₅ = 244.v, p < .001; ReviewerGender: x ² ₁ = 0.39, p = .53; Year*Periodical: x ² ₅₀ = 263.3, p < .001; Yr*ReviewerGender: x ^two ₁₂ = 14.five, p = .27; Journal*ReviewerGender: x ² ₅ = 18.7, p = .002)

Figure A2

The proportion of invitees responding to the request to review when that request comes from a male versus female handling editor. Proportions are averaged across journals within years, and presented as hateful ± SEM. Sample sizes for female editors are depression in the before years. Model: ReviewerAgreed[y/n] = Year + Journal + ReviewerGender + EditorGender + two‐way interactions; ReviewerGender: x ² _ane = 0.58, p = .45; EditorGender: ten ^two _one = ii.04, p = .fifteen; EditorGender*ReviewerGender: x ² ₁ = 0.26, p = .61)

Notes

Fox CW, Duffy MA, Fairbairn DJ, Meyer JA. Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at half-dozen journals of environmental and evolution. Ecol Evol. 2019;9:13636–13649. 10.1002/ece3.5794 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[Correction made subsequently initial online publication on five December 2019. Figures previously published every bit supporting information have now been included in the appendix].

Information AVAILABILITY Statement

An anonymized version of the dataset removing personal identifying data (author names and locations) will exist published on Dryad.

REFERENCES

• Adamo, S. A. (2013). Attrition of women in the biological sciences: Workload, maternity, and other explanations revisited. BioScience, 63(1), 43–48. [Google Scholar]
• Alzahrani, S. (2010). The role of editorial boards of scholarly journals on the dark-green and the gilded road to open admission (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. [Google Scholar]
• Amrein, Thousand. , Langmann, A. , Fahrleitner‐Pammer, A. , Pieber, T. R. , & Zollner‐Schwetz, I. (2011). Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gender Medicine, eight(six), 378–387. x.1016/j.genm.2011.x.007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bacchelli, A. , & Beller, M. (2017). Double‐blind review in software engineering venues: The community's perspective In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE‐C) (pp. 385–396). Buenos Aires, Argentina: IEEE. [Google Scholar]
• Baucom, R. South. , Geraldes, A. M. , & Rieseberg, L. H. (2019). Some perspective on Molecular Ecology perspectives: Are women being left out? Molecular Ecology, 28, 2451–2455. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Beck, C. , Boersma, K. , Tysor, C. S. , & Middendorf, M. (2014). Diversity at 100: Women and underrepresented minorities in the ESA: Peer‐reviewed letter. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(eight), 434–436. 10.1890/14.WB.011 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Borsuk, R. Thousand. , Aarssen, Fifty. West. , Budden, A. E. , Koricheva, J. , Leimu, R. , Tregenza, T. , & Lortie, C. J. (2009). To proper name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59(11), 985–989. [Google Scholar]
• Broussard, Thou. A. , Warner, R. H. , & Pope, A. R. (2018). Likewise many boxes, or not enough? Preferences for how we enquire about gender in cisgender, LGB, and gender‐diverse samples. Sex Roles, 78(9–10), 606–624. ten.1007/s11199-017-0823-2 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Buckley, H. L. , Sciligo, A. R. , Adair, K. L. , Case, B. S. , & Monks, J. Grand. (2014). Is there gender bias in reviewer choice and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology? New Zealand Ecological Society, 38(2), 335–339. [Google Scholar]
• Ceci, South. J. , Ginther, D. K. , Kahn, Due south. , & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in bookish science: A irresolute landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. 10.1177/1529100614541236 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cho, A. H. , Johnson, S. A. , Schuman, C. E. , Adler, J. 1000. , Gonzalez, O. , Graves, Southward. J. , … Bruna, E. M. (2014). Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resources management. PeerJ, ii, e542 10.7717/peerj.542 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Conley, D. , & Stadmark, J. (2012). Gender matters: A call to commission more than women writers. Nature, 488(7413), 590 10.1038/488590a [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cox, A. R. , & Montgomerie, R. (2019). The cases for and against double‐blind reviews. PeerJ, 7, e6702 10.7717/peerj.6702 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Débarre, F. , Rode, N. O. , & Ugelvig, L. V. (2018). Gender equity at scientific events. Evolution Letters, ii(3), 148–158. 10.1002/evl3.49 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Duffy, Thousand. A. (2017). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, vii(21), 8876–8887. 10.1002/ece3.3435 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• European Committee (2015). She Figures 2015. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee; Retrieved from https://ec.europa.european union/enquiry/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Play a trick on, C. West. (2017). Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at vi journals of ecology and development. Scientometrics, 113, 465–477. 10.1007/s11192-017-2489-five [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Play a joke on, C. West. , Albert, A. Y. , & Vines, T. H. (2017a). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in environmental and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(i), three ten.1186/s41073-017-0027-x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fob, C. W. , Burns, C. Due south. , & Meyer, J. A. (2016a). Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but non peer review outcomes at an ecology periodical. Functional Ecology, thirty(1), 140–153. [Google Scholar]
• Fox, C. W. , Burns, C. Southward. , Muncy, A. D. , & Meyer, J. A. (2016b). Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, xxx(1), 126–139. [Google Scholar]
• Fox, C. W. , Burns, C. S. , Muncy, A. D. , & Meyer, J. A. (2017b). Author‐suggested reviewers: Gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 31(1), 270–280. [Google Scholar]
• Fox, C. Westward. , & Paine, C. T. (2019). Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Environmental and Evolution, 9, 3599–3619. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fox, C. W. , Ritchey, J. P. , & Paine, C. T. (2018). Patterns of authorship in ecology and development: Outset, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and Evolution, 8(23), 11492–11507. 10.1002/ece3.4584 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Goulden, K. , Mason, M. A. , & Frasch, M. (2011). Keeping women in the science pipeline. The Annals of the American University of Political and Social Scientific discipline, 638(1), 141–162. 10.1177/0002716211416925 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Grod, O. N. , Lortie, C. J. , & Budden, A. E. (2010). Behind the shroud: A survey of editors in ecology and development. Frontiers in Environmental and the Environment, 8(4), 187–192. 10.1890/090048 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Helmer, One thousand. , Schottdorf, Chiliad. , Neef, A. , & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, six, e21718 x.7554/eLife.21718 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ho, R. C. Thou. , Mak, K. Grand. , Tao, R. , Lu, Y. , Twenty-four hours, J. R. , & Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: An online survey of academics from high‐ranking universities. BMC Medical Enquiry Methodology, 13(ane), 74 ten.1186/1471-2288-xiii-74 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ioannidou, E. , & Rosania, A. (2015). Under‐representation of women on dental journal editorial boards. PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0116630. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Karimi, F. , Wagner, C. , Lemmerich, F. , Jadidi, M. , & Strohmaier, M. (2016). Inferring gender from names on the web: A comparative evaluation of gender detection methods In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Spider web. International World Broad Web Conferences Steering Committee (pp. 53–54). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.04322.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Ledin, A. , Bornmann, L. , Gannon, F. , & Wallon, M. (2007). A persistent problem: Traditional gender roles concur back female scientists. EMBO Reports, 8(eleven), 982–987. x.1038/sj.embor.7401109 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lerback, J. , & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541(7638), 455–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Manlove, K. R. , & Belou, R. M. (2018). Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high‐rank ecological publications. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0192481 10.1371/journal.pone.0192481 [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Martin, 50. J. (2012). Where are the women in environmental? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(iv), 177–178. 10.1890/12.WB.011 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mauleón, Eastward. , Hillán, L. , Moreno, Fifty. , Gómez, I. , & Bordons, Chiliad. (2013). Assessing gender residuum among journal authors and editorial lath members. Scientometrics, 95(1), 87–114. 10.1007/s11192-012-0824-four [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McDonald, Due south. (2011). What's in the "onetime boys" network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks, 33(4), 317–330. x.1016/j.socnet.2011.x.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McLemore, Yard. A. (2015). Experiences with misgendering: Identity misclassification of transgender spectrum individuals. Cocky and Identity, 14(one), 51–74. 10.1080/15298868.2014.950691 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McPherson, M. , Smith‐Lovin, L. , & Cook, J. K. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Almanac Review of Folklore, 27(1), 415–444. ten.1146/annurev.soc.27.i.415 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Montague‐Hellen, B. (2018). Asking about gender and sexual orientation in your questionnaire. Figshare; ten.6084/m9.figshare.6550277.v1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Morton, M. J. , & Sonnad, S. S. (2007). Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99(7), 764. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• National Science Foundation (2015). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2014 (NSF Report 16–300). Arlington, VA: National Scientific discipline Foundation, National Center for Scientific discipline and Technology Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/assimilate/nsf16300.pdf [Google Scholar]
• National Science Foundation (2019). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Special Study NSF 19‐304. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd [Google Scholar]
• Stewart, A. J. , & Valian, Five. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diverseness and excellence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
• Topaz, C. Thousand. , & Sen, S. (2016). Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS Ane, 11(8), e0161357 ten.1371/periodical.pone.0161357 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wehi, P. G. , Beggs, J. R. , & Anderson, B. J. (2019). Leadership and diverseness in the New Zealand Ecological Order. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 43(2), 3368 ten.20417/nzjecol.43.16 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wellenreuther, Yard. , & Otto, S. (2016). Women in evolution–highlighting the changing face up of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Applications, 9(1), 3–sixteen. 10.1111/eva.12343 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wing, D. A. , Benner, R. S. , Petersen, R. , Newcomb, R. , & Scott, J. R. (2010). Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women's Health, nineteen(10), 1919–1923. ten.1089/jwh.2009.1904 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yoder, J. B. , & Mattheis, A. (2016). Queer in Stem: Workplace experiences reported in a national survey of LGBTQA individuals in science, applied science, engineering science, and mathematics careers. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(1), 1–27. 10.1080/00918369.2015.1078632 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

---

Manufactures from Ecology and Development are provided here courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell

---

kellysath1968.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6953666/