Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure.

INTRODUCTION

Women continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in the field of cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously using single-blind reviews, with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews.

METHODS

Manuscripts were stratified into 3 Eras: March-September 2021 (Era 1: prior to double-blind reviews); March-September 2022 (Era 2); and March-September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and disciplines of the first and senior authors.

RESULTS

A total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3, while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time-around 21%-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first-author discipline, and last-author gender, there was an increase in female first authors over time (P = 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and may highlight areas for future improvement by the Journal and academic publishing in general.