IS THERE GENDER BIAS IN JAMAS PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

Objective.-To assess whether manuscripts received by JAMA in 1991 poss essed differing peer review and manuscript processing characteristics, or had a variable chance of acceptance, associated with the gender of the participants in the peer review process. Design.-Retrospective co hort study of 1851 research articles. Setting.-JAMA editorial office. Participants.-Eight male and five female JAMA editors, 2452 male and 9 30 female reviewers, and 1698 male and 462 female authors. Main Outcom e Measure.-Statistically significant gender bias. Results.-Female edit ors were assigned manuscripts from female corresponding authors more o ften than were male editors (P<.001). Female editors used more reviewe rs per manuscript if sent for other review. Male reviewers assisted ma le editors more often than female editors, and male reviewers took lon ger to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts (median, 25 vs 22 days). Content reviewer recommendations were independent of c orresponding author and review gender, while male statistical reviewer s recommended the highest and lowest categories more frequently than d id female statistical reviewers (P<.001). Manuscripts handled by femal e editors were rejected summarily at higher rates (P<.001). Articles s ubmitted to JAMA in 1991 were not accepted at significantly different rates based on the gender of the corresponding author or the assigned editor (P>.4). Conclusions.-Gender differences exist in editor and rev iewer characteristics at JAMA with no apparent effect on the final out come of the peer review process or acceptance for publication.