Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
There is no single, field-wide answer to whether peer review is biased against women. Studies measure different stages—who is invited to review, who accepts, how reviewers assess manuscripts and which papers editors accept—and their findings vary. Some identify gender gaps in reviewer participation and selection; other studies find no lower acceptance for women-authored manuscripts in the samples they examined. Those results can coexist because they address different parts of the process.
What does “gender bias in peer review” mean?
Peer review is a sequence of decisions, not one outcome. A gender difference at one stage does not automatically prove discrimination at another. For example, fewer women serving as reviewers is a representation finding; it does not, by itself, show that a paper by a woman is less likely to be accepted.
![The Women Who Make History Collection [3-Book Box Set]: Women in Science, Women in Sports, Women in Art](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51w+pYlG5jL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
- Representation: who participates as authors, editors and reviewers.
- Reviewer selection: whom editors invite to evaluate a paper.
- Invitation response: whether an invited person agrees to review.
- Review outcome: what recommendation or assessment a reviewer gives.
- Editorial outcome: whether an editor accepts or rejects the manuscript.
Studies also differ in discipline, journal sample, how gender is identified and whether the analysis is observational or experimental. The available evidence therefore supports neither a universal claim that peer review penalizes women nor a blanket assurance that it does not.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →What large journal studies say about manuscript decisions
Analysis across 145 journals found no systematic penalty in its measured outcomes
A 2021 study by Squazzoni and colleagues analyzed 145 journals across research fields, using data on approximately 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. It examined referee selection, referee recommendations and editorial decisions. In that sample, the authors reported no systematic penalty against women-authored manuscripts; they reported more favorable treatment for manuscripts by women as solo authors or coauthors. Results varied by field. The analysis was observational and limited to journals with available data, so it does not establish what happens in every journal or discipline. Read the study in PLOS ONE.
#1 Best Overall
A 2024 biomedical study reported no lower acceptance after review
An indexed summary of a 2024 case-control study says manuscripts with a woman first author that had been sent for peer review were not associated with lower acceptance, contrary to the study’s hypothesis. It also reports post-hoc evidence supporting an absence of gender bias in publication acceptance. This is a sample-specific result, not a universal estimate; the indexed summary does not provide a basis here for adding sample counts or detailed effect sizes. See the indexed study summary.
Women’s participation in reviewer selection and invitations
Reviewer appointment patterns can reflect gendered networks
A 2017 analysis of public identities across 142 Frontiers journals covered more than 9,000 editors, 43,000 reviewers, 126,000 authors and about 41,000 articles. It found that women were underrepresented in peer review and that editors of both genders showed substantial same-gender preference when appointing reviewers, although the patterns differed by editor gender. This describes representation and reviewer-selection networks; it does not by itself show that women-authored papers received worse recommendations or were accepted less often. Read the study in eLife.
Agreeing to review is separate from being invited
A 2023 BMJ cohort study examined invitation responses at 19 biomedical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Women had lower adjusted odds than men of agreeing to review: adjusted odds ratio 0.92, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.89–0.95. The study also described disparities in invitations and geographic representation, with reviewers predominantly affiliated with high-income countries. The 0.92 estimate concerns agreement to review, not the acceptance rate of manuscripts. It should not be read as a field-wide measure of participation or as evidence about editorial acceptance. Read the BMJ cohort study.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesDoes double-blind review reduce gender bias?
In double-blind review, author and reviewer identities are masked; in single-blind review, reviewers can see author identities while their own identities are generally withheld from authors. A 2022 systematic review comparing these approaches found mixed results for publication rates by perceived author gender. Its conclusion was that there is reasonable evidence gender bias may exist and that blinding may mitigate its impact, but the evidence does not establish that double-blind review consistently removes bias across disciplines or journals. Read the systematic review in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Blinding is therefore a possible safeguard, not a guarantee. The findings do not justify ranking review models as universally fairer: results depend on what outcome is measured, which journals and fields are included, and how the studies identify gender.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to interpret the evidence
- Check the stage. An invitation gap, lower agreement rate, reviewer-score difference and acceptance gap are distinct findings.
- Check the sample. The 145-journal study spans fields, while the BMJ invitation study covers 19 biomedical journals; neither alone describes all scholarly publishing.
- Check the method. Observational associations do not establish that gender caused an outcome. Blinding studies also vary in design and context.
- Check how gender was recorded. Studies may infer or otherwise classify women and men differently; their categories should not be assumed to capture gender identity comprehensively.
The clearest conclusion is that gendered patterns have been documented in reviewer participation, reviewer selection and invitation responses, while measured manuscript decisions have not shown a consistent penalty against women across the cited studies. These findings answer different questions, and none supplies a universal rate of bias for peer review as a whole.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
