Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons

Lin Zhang · Yuanyuan Shang · Ying Huang · Gunnar Sivertsen

29 citations0/0 files storedScientometrics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Publishing and Scholarly Communication Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

Peer review of scientific manuscripts before publication is essential in scholarly publishing, and most active researchers hold relationships with a number of journals as both an author and a reviewer. There have been several studies focusing on gender balance in academic research and authorship, but fewer studies on our role as reviewers. Publons is a commercial website run by Clarivate Analytics that allows researchers to track and verify their peer review activities and be recognized for it. The platform features over 2 million researchers and 6.9 million reviews for more than 5,000 partnered journals, listing the most active reviewers as “top reviewers”. Our study focuses on gender representation in this ‘top reviewer’ group while also looking at the countries, regions and research fields they represent, as well as the relationship between their roles as authors and reviewers. The results show that male reviewers dominate in almost all countries, regions, and research fields. Male reviewers generally contribute to review work more frequently than females; however, female reviewers write longer reviews. The correlations between reviewing activity and research activity are generally weak overall and within specific research fields. This may reflect that active reviewers are not necessarily the most productive researchers in their fields. What clearly emerges from our results is the need for more concern over gender representation in the quality assurance and gatekeeping functions of scholarly publishing.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Matthew Effect in Science 1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.2013Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science 2017THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE:: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations 2015The Roots of Gender Inequality in Developing Countries 2020Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines 2013The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship 2018The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?

Cited by

2022Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality 2024The prominent and heterogeneous gender disparities in scientific novelty: Evidence from biomedical doctoral theses 2023Does writing style affect gender differences in the research performance of articles?: An empirical study of BERT-based textual sentiment analysis 2024Does academic engagement with industry come at a cost for early career scientists? Evidence from high-tech enterprises’ Ph.D. funding programs

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.