DOI: 10.5061/dryad.0mv3q
title: Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

description: There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer
 review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and
 biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors. We examined
 how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether
 author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the
 peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology
 between 2010 and 2014. Women represented approximately a third of all
 authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall
 frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26%
 were women). On multi-authored papers, women were also underrepresented as
 last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors
 (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first
 authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers;
 this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women
 were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female.
 Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer
 review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally
 likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male
 authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated
 papers authored by women differently than did female editors and
 reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different
 decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the
 entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women. Papers authored by
 women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because
 women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper
 were female than if the authors were male. Patterns of authorship, and the
 role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding
 author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to
 Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature
 indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is
 largely gender-neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at
 Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender.
description: Main data set, one paper
 per rowThis is an anonymized
 version of the dataset used for most of the analyses in Fox et al. 2016.
 Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is
 random. Editor ID is also randomized. Columns that could allow the dataset
 to be de-anonymized, such as editor seniority and editor years on the
 editorial board, have been deleted. The dataset includes one line per
 manuscript. This file allows recreation of most but not all analyses in
 the published manuscript. This is an anonymized version of the dataset
 used for the analyses in Fox et al. 2016. Manuscript ID numbers are random
 and the sort order within years is random.Fox et al
 data_anonymized_submitted to
 Dryad.xlsxData for papers reviewed
 by one male and one female reviewer.This file include only
 manuscripts that were reviewed by exactly one male and one female
 reviewer. The final two columns in the file include the review scores
 submitted by the male and female reviewer. Manuscript IDs are anonymized
 independently of those in the other data file provided for this
 manuscript.Paired reviewer
 data_anonymized_submitted to Dryad.xlsx