REFERENCES

• Aarssen, L. W. 2012. Are peer-review filters optimal for the progress of science in ecology and evolution? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5: 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Barres, B. A. 2006. Does gender matter? Nature 442: 133–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharyya, N., and N. L. Shapiro. 2000. Increased female authorship in otolaryngology over the past three decades. The Laryngoscope 110: 358–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blank, R. M. 1991. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 81 (5): 1041–1067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L. 2011. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45: 199–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsuk, R. M., L. W. Aarssen, A. E. Budden, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, T. Tregenza, and C. J. Lortie. 2009. To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. Bioscience 59: 985–989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budden, A. E., T. Tregenza, L. W. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, and C. J. Lortie. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(1): 4–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., and W. M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 3157–3162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and J. M. Hardiman. 2006. AFS men and women differ most in their lifestyle choices. Fisheries 31(10): 503–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVries, D., E. A. Marschall, and R. A. Stein. 2009. Exploring the peer review process: what is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries 34(6): 270–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duch, J., X. H. T. Zeng, M. Sales-Pardo, F. Radicchi, S. Otis, T. K. Woodruff, and L. A. N. Amaral. 2012. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. Public Library of Science ONE 7(12): e51332. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0051332.
   Google Scholar
• Engqvist, L., and J. G. Frommen. 2008. Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Animal Behaviour 76: E1–E2. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023.
   Google Scholar
• Franzin, W. G., and L. Alade. 2009. Recognizing diversity in AFS. Fisheries 34(2): 56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. R., E. S. Williams, and G. D. Lundberg. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 139–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidari, S., and T. Babor. 2013. Science editors: evaluate gender equality in journals. Nature 495(7439): 47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilborn, R. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries 31(11): 554–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, S., and F. Provost. 2003. The myth of the double-blind review?: author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 5(2): 179–184.
   Google Scholar
• Hojat, M., J. S. Gonnella, and A. S. Caelleigh. 2003. Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education 8: 75–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagsi, R., E. A. Guancial, C. C. Worobey, L. E. Henault, Y. Chang, R. Starr, N. J. Tarbell, and E. M. Hylek. 2006. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 281–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski, D., and C. Geisler. 2012. Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender. Science 335: 864–866.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassirer, J. P., and E. W. Campion. 1994. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association - US Edition 272 (2): 96–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kliewer, M. A., D. M. DeLong, K. Freed, C. B. Jenkins, E. K. Paulson, and J. M. Provenzale. 2004. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. American Journal of Roentgenology 183: 1545–1550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., C. J. Glynn, and M. Huge. 2013. The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment in gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communications 35: 603–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd, M. E. 1990. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23: 539–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffitt, C. M. 2012. Diversity in natural resource science professions: using feminine attributes to broaden diversity. Fisheries 37(8): 376–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primack, R., E. Ellwood, A. J. Miller-Rushing, R. Marrs, and A. Mulligan. 2009. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation 142(11): 2415–2418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapoport, A. 2004. Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 04-323, Arlington, Virginia.
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., and A. S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, second edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, J. S., C. P. Gross, M. M. Desai, Y. Hong, A. O. Grant, S. R. Daniels, V. C. Hachinski, R. J. Gibbons, T. J. Gardner, and H. M. Krumholz. 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association 295(14): 1675–1680. DOI:10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, H. 2013. Inequality quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature 495(7439): 22–24. DOI:10.1038/495022a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4): 178–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass, R. 2007. Editorial: single- versus double-blind reviewing. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 32(1): 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, J., J. B. James, and R. C. Barnett. 2002. Learning in a man's world: examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26: 46–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, G., J. Claussen, C. Moffitt, B. Norcross, and D. Parrish. 2013. Dr. J Frances Allen: pioneer of women in fisheries. Fisheries 38(3): 103–111.
   Google Scholar
• Wing, D. A., R. S. Benner, R. Petersen, R. Newcomb, and J. R. Scott. 2010. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women's Health 19: 1919–1923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar