Commentary

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

In the first-ever analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications, the system is revealed as being riddled with prejudice. The policy of secrecy in evaluation must be abandoned.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:

    $199

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    Science 241, 1740–1745 (1988).

  2. 2.

    , & Science 214, 881–886 (1981).

  3. 3.

    Social Forces 71, 159–178 (1992).

  4. 4.

    Social Stud. Sci. 25, 35–55 (1995).

  5. 5.

    & Am. Sci. 84, 63–71 (1996).

  6. 6.

    & J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272, 114–116 (1994).

  7. 7.

    , & Ann. Intern. Med. 116, 958 (1992).

  8. 8.

    FASEB J. 7, 619–621 (1993).

  9. 9.

    & Nature 374, 492 (1995).

  10. 10.

    Nature 378, 760 (1995).

  11. 11.

    Trans-Action 5, 28–30 (1968).

  12. 12.

    & Acad. Manag. Rev. 5, 267–276 (1980).

  13. 13.

    & Rev. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2, 9–43 (1982).

  14. 14.

    in Women and Achievement: Social and Motivational Analyses (eds Mednick, M. T., Tangri, S. S. & Hoffman, L. W.) 158–171 (Hemisphere, Washington DC, 1975).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology

    • Christine Wennerås
  2. Department of Clinical Immunology at Göteborg University, Guldhedsgatan 10, S-413 46 Göteborg, Sweden (e-mail: agnes.wold@immuno.gu.se).

    • Agnes Wold

Authors

  1. Search for Christine Wennerås in:

  2. Search for Agnes Wold in:

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.