Double-Blind Peer Review

Nature Geoscience recently announced they are offering the option for authors to remain anonymous to reviewers (here is a link to an editorial). Actually, both Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change are testing this option. The editorial that describes this new option explains that the journal's editors are convinced that this double-blind process will remove unconscious bias. In particular, the editorial states that "One of our motivations for setting up a double-blind trial is the possibility that female authors are subjected to tougher peer review than their male colleagues–a distinct possibility in view of evidence that subtle gender biases affect assessments of competence, appropriate salaries and other aspects of academic life ((Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 16474–16479; 2012)." 

As the editorial mentions, some reviewers will attempt to guess the identity of the authors. There will be clues in the paper, no matter how careful the author is. A few reviewers will be certain they have guessed correctly (even though they likely will be flat wrong). To what extent this guessing will influence the review, is not clear. Hopefully, most reviewers will simply shrug and focus on the paper's content, which is what they should be doing anyway.

Coincidentally, I just completed a double-blind review (my first) a few days ago for a different journal. Interestingly, the journal did not explain that the paper's authors would not be revealed to me. Instead, I was provided the usual links to the paper, which contained no mention of the authors or their affiliation. Not finding that information anywhere, I finally realized that this was a double-blind review.

Did not knowing the author's identity affect how I conducted the review? Not really. In fact, I liked not knowing who the author was quite a bit more than I expected. I wonder if other reviewers will feel the same way?

More Gender Bias Uncovered: Conference Symposia Organizers

Think about the last scientific conference you attended.  Did the speaker roster reflect the composition of your science society?  At a recent meeting I attended, several of us (women) were discussing the fact that there seemed to be a preponderance of male speakers, a proportion that did not reflect the gender makeup of our society.  When we pointed this out to the (mostly male) organizers, they basically pooh-poohed our concerns and waved their arms at all the female participants milling around (mostly grad students)....as if that addressed the point we were trying to make.

Turns out, there is now some evidence that the gender of session organizers has a significant influence on who ends up speaking in the more prestigious symposia sessions.

A recently published paper in PLOS One, "Stag Parties Linger: Continued Gender Bias in a Female-Rich Scientific Discipline", examined participation by women and men at conferences in a field in which women are in the numerical majority.  Based on an analysis of 21 annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, they found that in the subfield of primatology:

1. Women gave more posters than talks; men gave more talks than posters.

2. The proportion of female participants was lower in symposia organized by men (29%) compared to those organized by women only (64%) or by both men and women (58%).

They found the same pattern for 12 annual meetings of the American Society of Primatologists.

Primatology is a field that has had more female than male participants since the early 1970s and where women have achieved substantial peer and popular recognition for their achievements (Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey).  The results of this study suggest that even numerical dominance by females in a scientific field does not prevent gender bias. By looking at symposia participation, which is typically by invitation of the organizer, in relation to the gender of the organizer(s), the authors were able to say something about whether the underrepresentation by women at conferences might be due to lack of assertiveness by females or to bias.  Whereas posters and regular talks are self-motivated, the more prestigious symposia reflect a choice made by the organizer.  The results suggest that when men are the organizers, fewer women are invited to participate, but that men and women are equal participants in symposia organized by women (despite the larger numbers of women in the field).

Such bias may be unconscious on the part of the male symposia organizers.  I'm just guessing that this is the case as the authors have no data either way.  The authors of this paper, however, do state that they "cannot rule out" the possibility that male primatologists are more homophilic (homophily is preferential interaction with others who have similar attitudes, beliefs, or personal characteristics) than women.  The idea is that male symposia organizers have to spend more time interacting with their invitees, both before and after the symposium (e.g., to jointly prepare a conference proceedings) and simply prefer to work with other males.  Perhaps.  The jury is still out on that one.  But my guess is that this behavior is not restricted to male primatologists.

The finding that women gave more posters than talks and men the reverse is troubling and suggests the possibility that women are preferring the less visible presentation mode.  Although the study indicated that men were 12% more likely to request an oral talk over poster than women, which might explain the gender difference, the authors suggest that there still might be some bias occurring at the presentation selection/assignment stage (by the conference organizers).  Their data were pretty weak on this point, however.

In any case, this is yet another example of why it is important for women to be assertive in promoting themselves and their science.  We may need to encourage female students to give oral presentations. As for bias in inviting speakers, one solution is for more women to organize conference symposia and ensure that women are well represented in the speaker lineup.

Overturning the Stereotype

Recently, someone sent me a link to a website called This is What a Scientist Looks Like.  The site, which contains hundreds of photos posted by scientists, is part of a project designed to "challenge the stereotypical image of a scientist".

It's interesting to see what people submit. Some post photos of themselves at work; others at play. Some are serious and some are silly. Many show the scientists with their families. Some people noted in the description accompanying their photo that they have experienced how other people are surprised when faced with a scientist (them) who does not fit the stereotype (white, male, labcoated, nerdy). 

I've also occasionally encountered people who expressed incredulity upon being told my profession.  Some of these occasions were when I reentered the country and went through passport control. Because I carry an official passport (as a US government employee), I'm often asked what type of work I do for my agency. When I respond that I'm a scientist, I almost always get a double-take look from the passport officer.  Sometimes, they frown and question me further about exactly what I do science-wise, clearly not believing me. I can't imagine how they think I managed to get an official US passport using false information about my government job, but that's the implication. 

This third degree treatment always catches me off guard.  It's intimidating being questioned like this, and I automatically begin to feel guilty under the suspicious gaze of the US Customs agent.  Whatever I say sounds defensive and false.  Sometimes, the frown deepens, and the agent scrutinizes my documents some more.  I cringe and imagine the agent is going to next loudly announce to his supervisor and all my fellow travelers, "Hey, Joe, this lady here says she's a scientist.  Could you come over here?"  I briefly contemplate saying,  "Yes, I'm a real scientist who studies Important Scientific Topic and I'm just returning from a trip to Very Foreign Country where I gave the keynote address at a Major Scientific Conference."  However, I don't want to antagonize the agent and end up in one of those back rooms. So I just smile and confirm that what it says on my paperwork is correct. 

Later, I  fantasize about carrying around a copy of my doctorate diploma or my CV....to produce along with my passport and other travel papers.  Or perhaps I could just whip out my iPad already linked to my professional webpage describing my scientific credentials and activities? 

In the meantime, I hope the This Is What a Scientist Looks Like project will help change the public's perception of who can be a scientist.