Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review
The above links to the 'classic' study (1997) on sexism in peer-review systems. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone involved with a peer-review process, meaning everyone in academia, read this? Even if they felt like the analysis wasn't perfect, at least it would expose them to the ideas, and hopefully get them to think twice about their own biases. I know that if I discover that I harbor sexist biases (and I do on a somewhat regular basis), there must be many more who do as well since I didn't grow up in a vacuum. I even had a fairly left of normal up-bringing, so discovering moments of my own sexism is somewhat painful.
Many will argue that things have gotten better since 1997, but looking at the 'leaky pipeline numbers', it's clear that the situation is far from great.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Sarah, yes I agree about both the self-reflection and building up evidence about implicit biases.
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of other references for studies along similar lines (implicit biases in CV/resume evaluation, in leadership ability, and another double-blind peer review study):
Steinpreis. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates.
Eagly. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Budden et al. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jessica!
ReplyDelete