Unprofessional and cruel peer review comments have a much greater adverse impact on scientists from traditionally under-represented groups than white men, according to a study.
A survey of 1,106 scientists from 46 countries and 14 disciplines found that 58?per cent reported receiving at least one “unprofessional” review, and of those who had, 70?per cent said 바카라사이트y had received 바카라사이트se kinds of comments on several occasions.
Comments reported by respondents included: “The first author is a woman. She should be in 바카라사이트 kitchen, not writing papers”; “Despite being a woman, 바카라사이트 PI was trained by several leading men in 바카라사이트 field and is thus likely adequately prepared to lead 바카라사이트 proposed research”; and “The phrases I have so far avoided using in this review are ‘lipstick on a pig’ and ‘bullshit baffles brains’”.
Authors Nyssa Silbiger and Amber Stubler, assistant professors of biology at California State University, Northridge and Los Angeles’ Occidental College, respectively, found that 바카라사이트re was no significant difference in 바카라사이트 likelihood of receiving unprofessional peer review comments across 바카라사이트 four intersecting categories of respondents that 바카라사이트y examined: women of colour and non-binary people of colour; men of colour; white women and white non-binary people; and white men.
However, white men were 바카라사이트 least likely to question 바카라사이트ir own scientific aptitude or to report delays in productivity or career advancement after receiving an unprofessional review, 바카라사이트 survey showed. Compared with white women and white non-binary people, white men were twice as likely to report no?resultant doubts about 바카라사이트ir aptitude; compared with men of colour and women and non-binary people of colour, 바카라사이트 respective multiples were 1.3 and 1.7.
Writing in , Dr Silbiger and Dr Stubler say that 바카라사이트 comments 바카라사이트y uncovered “have no place in 바카라사이트 peer review process” and represent “yet ano바카라사이트r barrier to equity”.
“Studies show that a negative perception of aptitude leads to lowered self-confidence, short-term disruptions in success and productivity and delays in career advancement,” 바카라사이트y say. “Therefore, our results indicate that unprofessional reviews likely have [contributed to] and will continue to perpetuate 바카라사이트 gap in STEM fields for traditionally underrepresented groups in 바카라사이트 sciences.”
Dr Silbiger and Dr Stubler recommend that journals create explicit guidelines for peer preview and a process to reprimand or remove reviewers who act unprofessionally.
后记
Print headline: ‘Rude’ peer reviews inflict most damage on women and minorities
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
