Background: Reports indicate that there are gender-based differences in aspects of the peer-review process.
Methods: This is an analysis of editorial board members' reviews of original research submissions based on gender using the web-based management program, Editorial Manager, from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2008. We evaluated recommendations of editorial board members for acceptance/rejection using a four-tier system, agreement with editor's final decision, turnaround time from review request to submission, and editors' grades of reviews on a 5-point scale. We evaluated the performance of editorial board members with advancing tenure, seeking trends in recommendations over time.
Results: We included 6062 manuscript reviews representing 5958 manuscripts; 67% were assigned to male editorial board members and 33% to females. There were 38 editorial board members (25 men, 13 women) with tenure duration from 2 to 4.9 years, and 3 editors (2 men, 1 woman) serving 7, 7, and 6 years, respectively. Women were less likely to accept or accept with minor revisions than men (p < 0.003). Median turnaround times were 14 (0-55) days for women and 10 (0-33) days for men (p < 0.001). The editors' grades assigned to women were more often than men's grades in the very good to exceptional category (p < 0.0001). There was no difference based on gender, with approximately 73% decision congruence overall with the editors' final decisions. Men rejected more manuscripts than did women with advancing tenure on the editorial board (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: There are differences based on gender of editorial board members' recommendations about manuscript triage, turnaround time, and editors' grades assigned. Overall, however, these differences do not affect editors' ultimate decisions about manuscript publication.