GENDER REPRESENTATION IN THE EDITORIAL AND PEER-REVIEW PROCESSES

Anastasia L Misakian, Renee Williard, and Lisa A Bero
Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 1338 Sutter St, 11th Fl, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA

Objective: To determine whether the proportion of female editors, peer reviewers, and authors in biomedical journals is representative of the proportion of women in biomedical research.

Design: Cross-sectional survey of Abridged Index Medicus journals (n=120). The gender of editors, peer reviewers, and authors for 1996 was obtained from published lists of their names. In the case of androgynous names, information was provided by the journal office. Journal characteristics such as 1996 impact factor, year of journal inception, and journal topic were also collected.

Results: While women represent 26% of faculty at US medical schools (AAMC, 1996 data) and 26.5% (OR: 17.5%-35%) of authors in biomedical journals, they constitute 14.5% (OR: 8%-27%) of editors. Although almost half of the doctoral degree recipients (Digest of Education Statistics, 1994 data) in the biological/life sciences (41%) and health sciences (59%) are women, women comprise only 15% (OR: 10%-21%) of peer reviewers. Journals with higher proportions of female editors have higher percentages of female peer reviewers and authors (P<.0001). There was no association between impact factor or year of journal inception and the proportion of female editors, peer reviewers, or authors. Women are better represented as editors, peer reviewers, and authors in general than in specialty journals (P<.0001).

Conclusions: Because female representation on editorial and peer-review boards is lower than in the medical and research fields, women have less opportunity to influence research and policy agendas through the journal editing and peer-review processes.

Return to Session Information