Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.7554/eLife.21718 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.7554/eLife.21718 C5360442!5360442 !28322725     free     free     free Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\28322725 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       Elife 2017 ; 6 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28322725 |t=2017. Gender bias in scholarly peer review |pdf=|usr=}}{{28322725 }} gab.com Text Gender bias in scholarly peer review JO: Elife http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28322725 #FOAvip Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing. Twit Text FOAVip Gender bias in scholarly peer review ????Elife http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28322725 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28322725 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28322725 }}</ref> Gender bias in scholarly peer review #MMPMID28322725 Helmer M ; Schottdorf M ; Neef A ; Battaglia D Elife 2017[Mar]; 6 (ä): ä PMID28322725 show ga Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and it is essential that peer reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise alone. However, it is difficult to check for any bias in the peer-review process because the identity of peer reviewers generally remains confidential. Here, using public information about the identities of 9000 editors and 43000 reviewers from the Frontiers series of journals, we show that women are underrepresented in the peer-review process, that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference (homophily), and that the mechanisms of this homophily are gender-dependent. We also show that homophily will persist even if numerical parity between genders is reached, highlighting the need for increased efforts to combat subtler forms of gender bias in scholarly publishing. |*Peer Review [MESH] |*Publishing [MESH] |*Sexism [MESH]Gender bias in scholarly peer review (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing