Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science Publications Review bias prevention Re: [ECOLOG-L] So what does the science say? ... Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues
'Tis friction's brisk, rough rub [along with some grit], that provides the vital spark! --Alexander Reid Martin Effective squeaking is an art. WT Agitate, agitate, AGITATE! --Frederick Douglass' last words (if I remember correctly and my source was correct) - Original Message - From: Cynthia O'Rourke To: Wayne Tyson Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:57 PM Subject: Re: Science Publications Review bias prevention Re: [ECOLOG-L] So what does the science say? ... Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues It's apparently the norm in some fields, notably medicine, and I haven't heard of any ill effects, nor is it easy to imagine what the downsides could be for the general quality of publication. Maybe just not enough squeaky wheels? - Cynthia On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: O'Rourke and Ecolog: Why isn't this a uniform policy? Bias has no place in science, but it's everywhere. In fact, I think the submittals should be blind as well, to ensure that papers are judged on merit only. Students could be used as screeners, with editors checking all submissions and the reasons for rejection/acceptance by the screeners, to keep costs and the editors' work loads down. Finally, of course, the authors' and reviewers' names should be published, and all comments published. There should be a reasonable amount of back and forth between the reviewers and authors in the blind, so that reviewers and authors can be frank. Nothing polishes like fine grit. WT - Original Message - From: Cynthia O'Rourke c...@umbc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] So what does the science say? ... Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals. Budden et al. 2008 Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 23(1):4-6 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Denise Burchsted dburchs...@plymouth.eduwrote: Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students http://www.pnas.org/content/**early/2012/09/14/1211286109http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109 science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. On 2/19/2013 4:15 PM, Hanberry, Brice B. wrote: Or is it (sexist)? See: Bias Is Hurting Women in Science, Panel Reports http://www.nytimes.com/2006/**09/19/science/19women.html?_r=**0http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/science/19women.html?_r=0 Five Years After an Incendiary Remark, Signs That Harvard Is More Welcoming to Women http://thechoice.blogs.**nytimes.com/2010/03/12/**harvard-2/http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/harvard-2/ -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: ecolo...@listserv.umd.**EDU ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:36 PM To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues Let's not forget that the original comment that triggered this whole discussion was made by a woman! I don't think it was intended to be sexist. It's not sexist to say, In my experience, women tend to do X and would be better off doing Y. It may be accurate or inaccurate, but it's not sexist. Jane Shevtsov On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Leslie M. Adams leslie.ad...@comcast.net**wrote: Now, I am the one who must speak up and voice my support for Yvette (and Chandreyee). While no slight may have been intended, as a female scientist I too experienced the responses Yvette
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science Publications Review bias prevention Re: [ECOLOG-L] So what does the science say? ... Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues
It's apparently the norm in some fields, notably medicine, and I haven't heard of any ill effects, nor is it easy to imagine what the downsides could be for the general quality of publication. Maybe just not enough squeaky wheels? - Cynthia On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: O'Rourke and Ecolog: Why isn't this a uniform policy? Bias has no place in science, but it's everywhere. In fact, I think the submittals should be blind as well, to ensure that papers are judged on merit only. Students could be used as screeners, with editors checking all submissions and the reasons for rejection/acceptance by the screeners, to keep costs and the editors' work loads down. Finally, of course, the authors' and reviewers' names should be published, and all comments published. There should be a reasonable amount of back and forth between the reviewers and authors in the blind, so that reviewers and authors can be frank. Nothing polishes like fine grit. WT - Original Message - From: Cynthia O'Rourke c...@umbc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] So what does the science say? ... Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals. Budden et al. 2008 Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 23(1):4-6 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Denise Burchsted dburchs...@plymouth.edu**wrote: Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109http://www.pnas.org/content/**early/2012/09/14/1211286109 ht**tp://www.pnas.org/content/**early/2012/09/14/1211286109http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109 science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. On 2/19/2013 4:15 PM, Hanberry, Brice B. wrote: Or is it (sexist)? See: Bias Is Hurting Women in Science, Panel Reports http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/science/19women.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2006/**09/19/science/19women.html?_r=**0 http://www.nytimes.com/**2006/09/19/science/19women.**html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/science/19women.html?_r=0 Five Years After an Incendiary Remark, Signs That Harvard Is More Welcoming to Women http://thechoice.blogs.**nytim**es.com/2010/03/12/**harvard-2/http://nytimes.com/2010/03/12/**harvard-2/ **http://thechoice.blogs.**nytimes.com/2010/03/12/**harvard-2/http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/harvard-2/ -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: ecolo...@listserv.umd.**EDU ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:36 PM To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gender issues Let's not forget that the original comment that triggered this whole discussion was made by a woman! I don't think it was intended to be sexist. It's not sexist to say, In my experience, women tend to do X and would be better off doing Y. It may be accurate or inaccurate, but it's not sexist. Jane Shevtsov On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Leslie M. Adams leslie.ad...@comcast.netwrote: Now, I am the one who must speak up and voice my support for Yvette (and Chandreyee). While no slight may have been intended, as a female scientist I too experienced the responses Yvette cites - and especially the one recently posted by Dr. Olden - as belittling and dismissive. There is considerable gender bias in the fields of ecology and biology and it is important to object to it whenever it arises; whether intentional or not. Perhaps it is easy to counsel moving on when you are unaffected by this handicap personally, but to say that it is somehow unsuitable or inappropriate to address on this listserv is ridiculous and dismisses the tremendously damaging effect this bias
