Article 'She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers': Bias in STEM publishing still punishes women
Article 'She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers': Bias in STEM publishing still punishes women
Aug 6 2025, 7:42 AM
https://archive.ph/LwcdU
Quote:In judging individuals, it might be thought that there are appropriate quantitative and objective metrics to be used. In reality, such metrics can be seen to disadvantage women. Different disciplines and different countries may exhibit these tendencies to a greater or lesser extent. Letters of reference — in science as elsewhere — tend to use fewer stand-out adjectives about women than men, meaning their chance of progression is reduced.
Women's papers are cited less; their grants are on average smaller; and their papers have a harder time getting past reviewers. A recent study of referees' comments highlighted just how unpleasant, not to mention unhelpful, referee comments may be. One example stated: "This paper is, simply, manure." Hardly constructive criticism.
And misogyny can feed into reviewers' comments, sometimes explicitly, as in the case of another review quoted in the same paper: "The first author was a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers." I would like to think that referee was blacklisted thereafter by the editor concerned, but the fact the editor saw fit to pass the comments on makes me think that was unlikely.
https://www.livescience.com/human-behavior/the-first-author-was-a-woman-she-should-be-in-the-kitchen-not-writing-papers-bias-in-stem-publishing-still-punishes-women
https://archive.ph/LwcdU
Quote:In judging individuals, it might be thought that there are appropriate quantitative and objective metrics to be used. In reality, such metrics can be seen to disadvantage women. Different disciplines and different countries may exhibit these tendencies to a greater or lesser extent. Letters of reference — in science as elsewhere — tend to use fewer stand-out adjectives about women than men, meaning their chance of progression is reduced.
Women's papers are cited less; their grants are on average smaller; and their papers have a harder time getting past reviewers. A recent study of referees' comments highlighted just how unpleasant, not to mention unhelpful, referee comments may be. One example stated: "This paper is, simply, manure." Hardly constructive criticism.
And misogyny can feed into reviewers' comments, sometimes explicitly, as in the case of another review quoted in the same paper: "The first author was a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers." I would like to think that referee was blacklisted thereafter by the editor concerned, but the fact the editor saw fit to pass the comments on makes me think that was unlikely.
