Commentary | Published:

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

Subjects

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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Widnall, S. E. Science 241, 1740–1745 (1988).

  2. 2

    Cole, S., Cole, J. R. & Simon, G. A. Science 214, 881–886 (1981).

  3. 3

    Long, J. S. Social Forces 71, 159–178 (1992).

  4. 4

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

  5. 5

    Sonnert, G. & Holton, G. Am. Sci. 84, 63–71 (1996).

  6. 6

    Glantz, S. A. & Bero, L. A. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272, 114–116 (1994).

  7. 7

    Ernst, E., Resch, K. L. & Uher, E. M. Ann. Intern. Med. 116, 958 (1992).

  8. 8

    Forsdyke, D. R. FASEB J. 7, 619–621 (1993).

  9. 9

    Calza, L. & Gerbisa, S. Nature 374, 492 (1995).

  10. 10

    Perez-Enciso, M. Nature 378, 760 (1995).

  11. 11

    Goldberg, P. Trans-Action 5, 28–30 (1968).

  12. 12

    Nieva, V. F. & Gutek, B. A. Acad. Manag. Rev. 5, 267–276 (1980).

  13. 13

    O'Leary, V. E. & Wallston, B. S. Rev. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2, 9–43 (1982).

  14. 14

    Frieze, I. H. 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

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Publication history

  • Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0

Further reading

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.