Gender Gap in Peer Review Timelines: Women Face Longer Delays

Research by the University of Nevada reveals that women-authored scientific articles remain under peer review 15% longer than those by men, highlighting gender disparities in academia, particularly in STEMM fields. The largest analysis to date shows persistent differences in review duration, sparking debates on systemic biases against female researchers.

A recent study by the University of Nevada reveals a significant gender gap in the peer review process of scientific papers. Women-authored articles spend about 15% more time in review compared to those authored by men, an issue that contributes to publication delays and reinforces the longstanding gender disparities in academia.

The extensive analysis, published in the PLOS Biology journal, scrutinized over 3.65 crore articles from more than 36,300 journals. It found that for every 50 publications by female authors, these researchers endure an additional 350-750 days in the review period. This delay prevails despite controlling for various factors, emphasizing systemic issues.

The study sparks substantial discussions around biases in the peer review system against women and underscores the underrepresentation of women in STEMM. The topic remains contentious, with factors such as female first or corresponding authorship extending review times significantly, thereby slowing their academic progress.

(With inputs from agencies.)