Papers by female scientists spend ‘weeks longer in peer review’

Female biomedical researchers wait significantly longer to have their papers peer reviewed by journals, a new study has found.

Analysing more than 7.7 million biomedical and life sciences papers, a study published by PLOS Biology found articles authored by women spent between 7.4 per cent and 14.6 per cent longer in peer review compared with papers written by men.

Papers with a female corresponding author spent nearly two weeks longer under review (115 days on average) compared with those with a male corresponding author (102 days in total), while those with a female first author spent seven days longer under review than papers with a male lead author (101 days v 94 days), explains the study published on 20 January.

When both first and corresponding author were women the average wait was nine days longer compared with an all-male team (99 days v 90 days), it adds.

The higher the proportion of female authors on a biomedical or life sciences paper, the longer it spent under review, the study continues, noting the “weak but significantly positive correlation” between the sex of authors and the length of review times.

Seeking to understand why female-authored papers might take longer to review, researchers at the University of Nevada Reno examined the readability of the papers using algorithmic software and found women’s papers had higher readability scores on average. Yet this metric did not seem to influence whether papers were accepted more quickly or not, they said.

Improved representation of women in scientific literature over time made little difference. The peer review time gap in 2020 when 43 per cent of articles had a female first author was virtually the same as in 1960 when the proportion was 28 per cent, the paper says. 

Speaking to Times Higher Education, lead author David Alvarez-Ponce, professor of biology, said the longer waiting times are likely to be influenced by a “combination of three factors”.

“Journal editors and/or referees may be biased against women or against the institutions in which they tend to work, or against the kind of research that they tend to conduct,” he said.

“Female academics may be, on average, busier than their male counterparts with duties outside research, both at home and at work (shouldering higher teaching and service loads). As a result, when they are asked to review and resubmit a manuscript, they may take longer to do so,” he added.

In addition, some research suggests that “women tend to be more perfectionistic and to experience more self-doubt, which may also result in them taking longer to resubmit their manuscripts,” continued Alvarez-Ponce.

His paper also suggests the higher seniority of male scientists on average – partly caused by more women leaving academia earlier – might explain the willingness of reviewers to expedite their reviews.

Such delays could, however, have significant effects on the careers of women, says the paper, which notes that “for every 50 papers published by a female author, she will have spent on average 350–750 days longer than her male counterparts waiting for reviews and editorial decisions and/or revising manuscripts”.

While double-blind peer review could fix some of the issues around reviewer bias, said Alvarez-Ponce, “the other issues [around workloads and women’s higher inclination towards perfectionism] are harder to fix in the short term”.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com