DOI: 10.5061/dryad.37312
title: Data from: Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal

description: Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality
 and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable
 reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of
 preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who
 is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to
 suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively. In
 this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and
 nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors,
 and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and
 outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how
 gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the
 role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process. Even when not
 required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few
 suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male,
 but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11
 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. Male and female
 authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred
 reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher
 for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors
 (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more
 likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. There
 was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an
 editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used
 author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were
 author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review
 invitations but were not more likely to agree to review. Most strikingly,
 author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did
 editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred
 reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were
 papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not
 influenced by the gender of the participants in the process. Suggesting
 preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate
 papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers,
 improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal
 editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts
 differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this
 difference can have large effects on editor decisions.
description: Fox et al_Review data
 2004-2014_one line per paperThis is an anonymized
 version of the dataset used for most of the analyses in the associated
 paper. Manuscript ID numbers are random and the sort order within years is
 random; manuscript ID numbers can be used to link the three files uploaded
 for this paper. 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 (combined with the others uploaded for this
 manuscript) allows recreation of most but not all analyses in the
 published manuscript.Fox et al_Detailed
 reviewer data_one line per reviewerThis file contains lists
 data for each reviewer selected to review for the journal, one reviewer
 per line. Manuscript ID numbers are random but the manuscript ID numbers
 can be used to link the three files uploaded for this
 paper.Fox et al_ Author
 details 2010-2014_one line per paperThis dataset includes
 author details for manuscripts submitted 2010-2014, one manuscript per
 row. Manuscript ID numbers are random but ID numbers can be used to link
 the three files uploaded for this paper. Columns that could allow the
 dataset to be de-anonymized have been deleted.Fox et al_Author details
 2010-2014_one line per paper.xlsx