#17

 

Double-blind peer review helps reduce bias.

Double-blind reviewing of publications, where authors are not identifiable to reviewers has increased publication rates for women researchers. This suggests either women were given harsher treatment during review, or were less likely to submit when their gender could be identified at submission.20 As publication is a pathway to leadership, this is another area where women get held back.

RESEARCH.

Mother Nature Needs Her Daughters: A Homeward Bound Global Review and Fact Sheet Investigating Gender Inequality in STEMM

Prepared by Fabian Dattner, Homeward Bound CEO and Co-founder;
Dr Mary-Ellen Feeney, Jacobs Group (Australia); and
Professor Tonia Gray, Centre for Educational Research, Western Sydney University.
Compiled by Homeward Bound Alumni from 2018 & 2019

Copies can be download at https://doi.org/10.26183/5d22d5fbe2349

Online version here.

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, and Lortie CJ. (2008) Trends in Ecology Evolution. 23(1):4-6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Nepotism and sexism in peer review; The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study

Female postdoctoral applicants have to be significantly more productive than a male applicant to receive the same peer review score. This meant that she either had to publish at least three more papers in a prestigious science journal or an additional 20 papers in lesser-known speciality journals to be judged as productive as a male applicant. Systematic underrating of female applicants could help explain the lower success rate of female scientists in achieving high academic rank compared with their male counterparts.

https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698

MEDIA.

Research: To Reduce Gender Bias, Anonymize Job Applications

HBR – Research has shown that gender diversity promotes scientific creativity and innovation. Furthermore, lower success rates for women in science represent a shortcoming in social justice and reduce role models for young women, perpetuating the lack of women in the pipeline. Blinding applications is a relatively simple step forward in curbing these inefficiencies and injustices, but many scientific institutions have not yet implemented it in their processes. The authors’ research demonstrates that anonymizing applications can improve the rates at which women are accepted into prestigious research programs.

https://hbr.org/2020/03/research-to-reduce-gender-bias-anonymize-job-applications

Ten evidence based practises for de-biasing the workplace

HKS – Biases can be triggered unconsciously when we see a candidate’s demographic information. This can lead us to select or promote candidates not based on a rational assessment of their capabilities but rather on stereotypes that are not useful in predicting future performance. One of the simplest ways to de-bias the hiring process is to evaluate resumes by removing candidates’ demographic information.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/iris_bohnet/files/ten_evidence-based_practices_for_de-biasing_the_workplace_final.pdf

SHARE YOUR STORY.

How have you experienced this gender fact in your life or in your workplace?

Share your story, or how your organisation has overcome this fact.

New research? Let us know.

STRONGERTOGETHER

It’s time to give women in STEMM a bigger voice. Share these facts with everyone you know*. Shout it out loud. Be heard. Rally together. Pass it to your peers, your networks and social circles.

BECAUSE TOGETHER, WE CAN CHANGE THE STATUS QUO

* Steal the Gender Facts resources from our public TRELLO board. We don’t mind at all.