Influence of Author's Gender on the Peer-Review Process in Vision Science.

PURPOSE

To investigate the gender gap in first/last authors in vision science and whether gender affects manuscript review times.

DESIGN

Observational retrospective database study.

METHODS

First/last author's gender and country were assigned to 30 438 PubMed records (data derived from Q1-Q2 Ophthalmology journals for 2016-2020). Using mixed models, the influence of First Author Female (FAF) and Last Author Female (LAF) were evaluated on the manuscripts' review timeline. This analysis was performed globally and in predefined subgroups (English names, Asian names, specific topics). Additionally, the gender GAP was explored by country, journal, and research topics.

RESULTS

The percentages of FAF/LAF were unevenly distributed by country; in the top 30 ophthalmology journals, FAF accounted for 40.0%±6.7% of the publications whereas LAF accounted for 27.1%±4.9%. Overall, FAF/LAF papers underwent significantly longer times to be reviewed (up to +10 days) and accepted (+5 days). These differences persisted when only English names-easily recognizable worldwide-were considered, but not for Asian names. Delays >1 month to get published were found for FAF in 3 of 4 topics analyzed (eg, amblyopia).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences were found in both review and acceptance times for FAF or LAF papers. The causes for this are likely multifactorial and could be explained by a combination of gender bias and by women's concerns with being held to higher standards, something that has been previously documented, thereby perhaps delaying the rebuttal to reviewers. Increased awareness of this source of potential bias may assist in the implementation of preventive and corrective measures.