The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities


      To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016.

      Study design

      Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors.


      Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%).


      There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.



      AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Pediatrics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Association of American Medical Colleges
        The state of women in academic medicine: the pipeline and pathways to leadership, 2015-2016.
        (Association of American Medical Colleges)
        • Association of American Medical Colleges
        FAMOUS: Faculty administrative management online user system, U.S. medical school faculty 2016.
        Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington (DC)2014 (Table 13)
        • Fishman M.
        • Williams W.A.
        • Goodman D.M.
        • Ross L.F.
        Gender differences in the authorship of original research in pediatric journals, 2001-2016.
        J Pediatr. 2017; 191: 244-249
        • Aakhus E.
        • Mitra N.
        • Lautenbach E.
        Gender and byline placement of co-first authors in clinical and basic science journals with high impact factors.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 610-611
        • Filardo G.
        • da Graca B.
        • Sass D.M.
        • Pollock B.D.
        • Smith E.B.
        • Martinez M.A.-M.
        Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014).
        BMJ. 2016; 352: i847
        • Schrager S.
        • Bouwkamp C.
        • Mundt M.
        Gender and first authorship of papers in family medicine journals 2006-2008.
        Fam Med. 2011; 43: 155-159
        • Shah D.N.
        • Huang J.
        • Ying G.S.
        • Pietrobon R.
        • O'Brien J.M.
        Trends in female representation in published ophthalmology literature, 2000-2009.
        Digit J Ophthalmol. 2013; 19: 50-55
        • Silvestre J.
        • Wu L.C.
        • Lin I.C.
        • Serletti J.M.
        Gender authorship trends of plastic surgery research in the United States.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 138: 136e-142e
        • Liang T.
        • Zhang C.
        • Khara R.M.
        • Harris A.C.
        Assessing the gap in female authorship in radiology: trends over the past two decades.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 735-741
        • Long M.T.
        • Leszczynski A.
        • Thompson K.D.
        • Wasan S.K.
        • Calderwood A.H.
        Female authorship in major academic gastroenterology journals: a look over 20 years.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 1440-1447
        • Amering M.
        • Schrank B.
        • Sibitz I.
        The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals.
        Acad Med. 2011; 86: 946-952
        • Jagsi R.
        • Guancial E.A.
        • Worobey C.C.
        • Henault L.E.
        • Chang Y.
        • Starr R.
        • et al.
        The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35 year perspective.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 281-287
        • Amrein K.
        • Langmann A.
        • Fahrleitner-Pammer A.
        • Pieber T.R.
        • Zollner-Schwetz I.
        Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals.
        Gend Med. 2011; 8: 378-387
        • DeAngelis C.
        Women in pediatrics.
        JAMA Pediatr. 2015; 169: 106-107
        • Harris C.A.
        • Banerjee T.
        • Cramer M.
        • Manz S.
        • Ward S.T.
        • Dimick J.
        • et al.
        Editorial (spring) board? Gender composition in high-impact general surgery journals over 20 years.
        Ann Surg. 2018; (Epub ahead of print)
        • Jagsi R.
        • Tarbell N.J.
        • Henault L.E.
        • Chang Y.
        • Hylek E.M.
        The representation of women on the editorial boards of major medical journals: a 35-year perspective.
        Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 544-548
        • Staats C.
        State of the science: implicit bias review 2014.
        Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University, Columbus2014
        • Staats C.
        • Capatosto K.
        • Tenney L.
        • Mamo S.
        State of the science: implicit bias review 2017.
        Kirwan Institute for the Sudy of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University, Columbus2017
        • Barkan S.E.
        Sociology: understanding and changing the social world.
        Flat World Knowledge, Incorporated, Boston2011
        • Gilbert J.R.
        • Williams E.S.
        • Lunberg G.D.
        Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?.
        JAMA. 1994; 272: 139-142
        • Budden A.E.
        • Tregenza T.
        • Aarssen L.W.
        • Koricheva J.
        • Leimu R.
        • Lortie C.J.
        Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
        Trends Ecol Evol (Amst). 2008; 23: 4-6
        • Darling E.S.
        Use of double blind peer review to increase author diversity.
        Conserv Biol. 2015; 29: 297-299
        • Pinholster G.
        Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review.
        American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2016
        • Tomkins A.
        • Zhang M.
        • Heavlin W.D.
        Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114: 12708-12713
        • Saxena R.
        Getting bias out of peer review is still a struggle.
        (Ars Technica)
        • Ferris L.E.
        • Brumback R.A.
        Academic merit, promotion, and journal peer reviewing: the role of academic institutions in providing proper recognition.
        J Child Neurol. 2010; 25: 538-540
        • van Loon A.J.
        Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
        Nature. 2003; 423: 116
        • Gross A.F.
        • Wiechers I.R.
        • Stern T.A.
        Peer review by early career psychiatrists: an opportunity for development.
        J Clin Psychiatry. 2009; 70: 1600-1601
        • Lerback J.
        • Hanson B.
        Journals invite too few women to referee.
        Nature. 2017; 541
        • Stoye E.
        Studies flag signs of gender bias in peer review.
        Chem World. 2017;
        • Helmer M.
        • Schottdorf M.
        • Neef A.
        • Battaglia D.
        Gender bias in scholarly peer review.
        Elife. 2017; 6 (pii: e21718)
        • Compton-Phillips A.
        Gender bias in health care: glass ceiling, or foundation of sand?.
        N Engl J Med Catalyst. 2016;
        • Horn K.V.
        Gender bias in academic medicine.
        Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 8: 97-99

      Linked Article

      • The role of gender and gender equity in The Journal of Pediatrics
        The Journal of PediatricsVol. 200
        • Preview
          Williams et al examined the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors to determine if there were differences in publication recommendations and outcomes for manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015-2016. Female corresponding authors submitted a proportional number of manuscripts to The Journal and these manuscripts were accepted at equal rates, regardless of the editor's or the reviewer's gender. However, women received fewer invitations to review manuscripts and were less likely to accept or complete reviews.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF