What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Peer review does not have one single gender-bias outcome. Studies find gendered patterns in who participates, who is invited, and who agrees to review, while findings about manuscript recommendations and acceptance are mixed. One large multi-journal analysis found no systematic penalty against women-authored papers in the outcomes it measured; that result does not erase disparities at other stages or settle what happens in every discipline.
What does “gender bias in peer review” mean?
Peer review is a sequence of decisions, not a single pass-or-fail test. Editors choose reviewers, reviewers may accept or decline invitations, reviewers assess manuscripts, and editors decide whether to accept a paper. A disparity at one stage does not by itself show that women-authored manuscripts are less likely to be published.
- Representation: Who serves as a reviewer or editor?
- Selection: Who is invited to review a particular paper?
- Participation: Who agrees to an invitation?
- Assessment: Do reviewer recommendations differ by author gender?
- Publication: Are manuscripts accepted at different rates?
These outcomes require separate evidence. The studies summarized here also differ in discipline, journal sample, and how gender was identified, so their findings should not be treated as a single field-wide rate.
What do large studies say about women-authored manuscripts?
A 2021 study across 145 journals found no systematic penalty in its measured outcomes
Squazzoni and colleagues analyzed data from 145 journals across research fields, covering approximately 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. They modeled referee selection, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions. In their sample, they reported no systematic penalty against women-authored manuscripts; papers by women as solo authors and papers coauthored by women received more favorable treatment from referees and editors in the measured outcomes. Results varied by field. The PLOS ONE study is observational and based on journals with available data, so it cannot establish that bias is absent in other journals or disciplines.
#1 Best Overall
A 2024 biomedical study reported no lower acceptance after review
An indexed summary of a 2024 case-control study reports that, among manuscripts sent for peer review, having a woman first author was not associated with lower acceptance, contrary to the study’s hypothesis. It also reports post-hoc evidence supporting an absence of gender bias in publication acceptance. This is a sample-specific finding, and the available summary does not support adding detailed methods or effect estimates. See the indexed study summary.
Are women underrepresented or less likely to review?
Reviewer networks show gaps in participation and selection
A 2017 analysis examined public identities across 142 Frontiers journals, including more than 9,000 editors, 43,000 reviewers, and 126,000 authors associated with about 41,000 articles. It found that women were underrepresented in peer review and that editors of both genders showed substantial same-gender preference when appointing reviewers, though the patterns differed by editor gender. These findings concern representation and reviewer selection, not whether women-authored papers received worse editorial decisions. Read the eLife analysis.
Women were less likely to agree to review in a 2023 cohort study
A BMJ cohort study of invitations at 19 biomedical journals, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, found lower adjusted odds that women than men would agree to review: adjusted odds ratio 0.92, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.89–0.95. The study also described disparities in invitations and geographic representation; reviewers were predominantly affiliated with high-income countries. The agreement statistic is about responding to an invitation, not the acceptance rate for manuscripts. Read the BMJ study.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Does double-blind review reduce gender bias?
In double-blind review, author and reviewer identities are masked from one another; in single-blind review, reviewers can see author identities. A 2022 systematic review found mixed evidence on publication rates by perceived author gender. Its conclusion was that gender bias may exist and blinding may mitigate its effects, not that double-blind review consistently eliminates bias across journals and disciplines. Read the systematic review in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Whether blinding is likely to help depends on the outcome being examined and the journal context. The studies summarized here do not establish a universally fairer review model, and masking identities alone does not address disparities in who is asked or able to review.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to interpret the evidence
- Check which stage a study measures: reviewer representation, invitation, agreement, recommendation, editorial decision, or acceptance.
- Keep the discipline, journal sample, and publication year attached to every result; estimates from particular journals are not field-wide prevalence figures.
- Note how gender categories were determined. The studies use or infer categories such as women and men, which should not be taken as comprehensive measurement of gender identity.
- Distinguish observational associations from causal evidence. Patterns in journal records do not, on their own, prove why a disparity arose.
The evidence therefore supports a qualified answer: gendered patterns exist in reviewer participation and selection, while measured outcomes for women-authored manuscripts vary across studies. Neither the participation studies nor the findings of no acceptance penalty in particular samples can stand in for every stage of peer review.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
