The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
; 227(1): 43-50.e4, 2022 07.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-35120887
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:
Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESISMETHODS:
The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO.RESULTS:
In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized.CONCLUSION:
Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Revisão por Pares
/
Sexismo
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Systematic_reviews
Limite:
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2022
Tipo de documento:
Article