The Editorial 'Working double-blind' ( Nature 451, 605–606; 2008) referred to a study1 that found more female first-author papers were published using a double-blind, rather than a single-blind, peer-review system. The data reported in ref. 1 have now been re-examined2. The conclusion of ref. 1, that Behavioral Ecology published more papers with female first authors after switching to a double-blind peer-review system, is not in dispute. However, ref. 2 reports that other similar ecology journals that have single-blind peer-review systems also increased in female first-author papers over the same time period. After re-examining the analyses, Nature has concluded that ref. 1 can no longer be said to offer compelling evidence of a role for gender bias in single-blind peer review. In addition, upon closer examination of the papers listed in PubMed on gender bias and peer review, we cannot find other strong studies that support this claim. Thus, we no longer stand by the statement in the fourth paragraph of the Editorial, that double-blind peer review reduces bias against authors with female first names.
References
Budden, A. E. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 4–6 (2008).
Webb, T. J., O'Hara, B. & Freckleton, R. P. Trends Ecol. Evol. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.003 (2008).
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1038/451605b
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Correction. Nature 453, 711 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/453711c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/453711c
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.