Author(s): Srivastava, Diane S. ; Bernardino, Joana ; Marques, Ana Teresa ; Proença-Ferreira, António ; Filipe, Ana Filipa ; Borda-de-Água, Luís ; Gameiro, João
Date: 2024
Persistent ID: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/102155
Origin: Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa
Subject(s): equity in science; gender; nationality; publishing ethics; scientific review process
1. Functional Ecology conducted a randomised trial comparing single- and double- blind peer review; a recent analysis of this data found substantial evidence for bias by reviewers. 2. We show that this dataset can also be analysed for editor bias, after controlling for both reviewer bias and paper quality. 3. Our analysis shows that editors tend to be more likely to invite high-scoring man- uscripts for revision or resubmission when the first author is a man from a coun- try with a very high Human Development Index (HDI); first authors who were women or not from very high HDI countries were more likely to be rejected at this stage. 4. We propose that journals consider a triple-blind review process where neither editors nor reviewers know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers nor editors.
