References
- Amrein, K., A. Langmann, A. Fahrleitner-Pammer, T. R. Pieber, and I. Zollner-Schwetz. 2011. Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gender Medicine 8 (6):378–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2011.10.007.
- Borja, Á. 2015. Is there gender bias in the peer-review process in several Elsevier’s marine journals? Marine Pollution Bulletin 96 (1–2):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.046.
- Borrell, C., C. Vives-Cases, M. F. Domínguez-Berjón, and C. Álvarez-Dardet. 2015. Gender inequalities in science: Gaceta Sanitaria takes a step forward. Gaceta Sanitaria 29 (3):161–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.03.005.
- Breuning, M., J. Backstrom, J. Brannon, B. I. Gross, and M. Widmeier. 2015. Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Political Science and Politics 48 (04):595–600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827.
- Buckley, H. L., A. R. Sciligo, K. L. Adair, B. S. Case, and J. M. Monks. 2014. Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 38(2):335–9.
- Campbell, L. G., S. Mehtani, M. E. Dozier, and J. Rinehart. 2013. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. Ed. V. Larivière. PLoS ONE 8 (10):e79147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147.
- Ceci, S. J., and W. M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 ( 8):3157–62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
- Davó, M. C., C. Vives, and C. Alvarez-Dardet. 2003. Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57 (12):936–7.
- Fox, C. W., C. S. Burns, and J. A. Meyer. 2016. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Ed. K. Thompson. Functional Ecology 30 (1):140–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12529.
- García-Calvente, M. D. M., M. T. Ruiz-Cantero, M. Del Río-Lozano, C. Borrell, and M. P. López-Sancho. 2015. Gender inequalities in research in public health and epidemiology in Spain (2007–2014). Gaceta Sanitaria 29 (6):404–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.07.013.
- Gilbert, J. R., E. S. Williams, and G. D. Lundberg. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? JAMA 272 (2):139–42.
- Haak, L. L., M. Fenner, L. Paglione, E. Pentz, and H. Ratner. 2012. ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing 25 (4):259–64. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404.
- Heidari, S., T. F. Babor, P. De Castro, S. Tort, and M. Curno. 2016. Sex and gender equity in research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6.
- Helmer, M., M. Schottdorf, A. Neef, and D. Battaglia. 2017. Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review. ELife 6 (March):e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.
- Kearney, M. H., Judith G. Baggs, Marion E. Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, and Margaret C. Freda. 2008. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 40 (4):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x.
- Larivière, V., C. Ni, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, and C. R. Sugimoto. 2013. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504 (7479):211–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a.
- Lerback, J., and B. Hanson. 2017. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature 541 (7638):455–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a.
- Lipworth, W. L., I. H. Kerridge, S. M. Carter, and M. Little. 2011. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science and Medicine 72 (7):1056–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002.
- Mrowinski, M. J., A. Fronczak, P. Fronczak, O. Nedic, and M. Ausloos. 2016. Review time in peer review: Quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows. Scientometrics 107 (1):271–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z.
- Nguyen, V. M., N. R. Haddaway, L. F. G. Gutowsky, A. D. M. Wilson, A. J. Gallagher, M. R. Donaldson, N. Hammerschlag, and S. J. Cooke. 2015. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. Ed. M. A. Andrade-Navarro. PloS One 10 (8):e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.
- Nobarany, S., K. S. Booth, and G. Hsieh. 2016. What motivates people to review articles? The case of the human-computer interaction community. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (6):1358–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23469.
- Ruano-Raviña, A., and C. Alvarez Dardet. 2014. Parasite authors or altruism in the peer-review process. The importance of authors also being reviewers. Gaceta Sanitaria 28 (5):354–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.06.004.
- Snell, L., and J. Spencer. 2005. Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education 39 (1):90–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x.
- Tite, L., and S. Schroter. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 (1):9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817.
- Topaz, C. M., and S. Sen. 2016. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. Ed. C. M. Danforth. PLOS ONE 11 (8):e0161357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161357.
- Willis, M. 2016. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing 29 (1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006.
- 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 (10):1919–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1904.