Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrod, ON
dc.contributor.authorBudden, AE
dc.contributor.authorTregenza, T
dc.contributor.authorKoricheva, J
dc.contributor.authorLeimu, R
dc.contributor.authorAarssen, LW
dc.contributor.authorLortie, CJ
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-22T09:47:19Z
dc.date.issued2008-09-12
dc.description.abstractThe characteristics of referees and the potential subsequent effects on the peer-review process are an important consideration for science since the integrity of the system depends on the appropriate evaluation of merit. In 2006, we conducted an online survey of 1334 ecologists and evolutionary biologists pertaining to the review process. Respondents were from Europe, North America and other regions of the world, with the majority from English first language countries. Women comprised a third of all respondents, consistent with their representation in the scientific academic community. Among respondents we found no correlation between the time typically taken over a review and the reported average rejection rate. On average, Europeans took longer over reviewing a manuscript than North Americans, and females took longer than males, but reviewed fewer manuscripts. Males recommended rejection of manuscripts more frequently than females, regardless of region. Hence, editors and potential authors should consider alternative sets of criteria, to what exists now, when selecting a panel of referees to potentially balance different tendencies by gender or region.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was conducted as part of the role of publication-related biases in ecology Working Group supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a Center funded by NSF (Grant no. DEB-0072909).en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 3, e3202en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0003202
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/25998
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787653en_GB
dc.rights© 2008 Grod et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en_GB
dc.subjectBiological Evolutionen_GB
dc.subjectEcologyen_GB
dc.subjectEditorial Policiesen_GB
dc.subjectFemaleen_GB
dc.subjectHumansen_GB
dc.subjectMaleen_GB
dc.subjectPeer Review, Researchen_GB
dc.subjectPublication Biasen_GB
dc.subjectPublishingen_GB
dc.subjectResearchen_GB
dc.subjectSex Factorsen_GB
dc.titleSystematic variation in reviewer practice according to country and gender in the field of ecology and evolutionen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2017-02-22T09:47:19Z
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited Statesen_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalPLoS Oneen_GB
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC2527679
dc.identifier.pmid18787653


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record