Gender parity and homophily in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence editorial process

Background: Despite efforts towards gender parity and some improvement over time, gender bias in peer review remains a pervasive issue. We examined gender representation and homophily in the peer review process for Drug and Alcohol Dependence (DAD).

Methods: We extracted data for papers submitted to DAD between 2004 and 2019, inclusive. Inferred gender was assigned to handling editors and reviewers using the NamSor gender inference Application Programming Interface (API).

Results: Men and women handling editors were approximately equally likely to invite women reviewers over time, with only a few exceptions. Over time, 47.1% of editors were women, and 42.6% of review invitations were sent to women. Men were largely consistent over time in their likelihood of accepting a review invitation, while the likelihood of women accepting a review invitation was more variable over time. Gender differences in rates of accepting a review invitation were minimal; however, as women approached half of all invited reviewers in recent years, there has been a greater trend for women, relative to men, to decline review invitations. Evidence of homophily on the part of reviewers accepting invitations was minimal, but in certain years, a tendency to accept review invitations at higher rates from editors of the same gender was observed.

Discussion: Given the benefits of diversity in scientific advancement, these results underline the importance of continuing efforts to increase gender diversity among editors and in reviewer pools, and the need for reviewers to be mindful of their own reviewing practices.