# Biomedical and life science articles by female researchers spend longer under review

## TL;DR

Female researchers in biomedical and life sciences face longer peer review times for their articles compared to male researchers, contributing to gender gaps in academia.

## Contribution

This study reveals a significant and pervasive gender gap in peer review times across most biomedical and life science disciplines.

## Key findings

- Female-authored articles spend 7.4%–14.6% longer under review compared to male-authored articles.
- The gender gap in review times persists across most disciplines, regardless of women's representation in those fields.
- Researchers from low-income countries also experience longer peer review times.

## Abstract

Women are underrepresented in academia—especially in STEMM fields, at top institutions, and in senior positions. This is due, at least in part, to the many obstacles that they face compared to their male counterparts. There has been substantial debate as to whether the peer review system is biased against women. Some studies—mostly based on analyses of thousands of Economics research articles—have shown that manuscripts authored by women experience longer peer review times (defined as the time intervened from submission to acceptance) than comparable manuscripts authored by men. Other studies, however, have found no effect of author’s gender on acceptance delays, raising questions about whether the gender gap is specific to certain fields. Biomedical and life scientists produce 36% of the research articles published annually worldwide; therefore, a comprehensive understanding of how women are treated by the peer review system requires a thorough examination of biomedicine and the life sciences. By analyzing all articles indexed in the PubMed database (>36.5 million articles published in >36,000 biomedical and life sciences journals), we show that the median amount of time spent under review is 7.4%–14.6% longer for female-authored articles than for male-authored articles, and that differences remain significant after controlling for several factors. The gender gap is pervasive, affecting most disciplines, regardless of how well women are represented in each discipline; however, the gap is absent or even reversed in some disciplines. We also show that authors based in low-income countries tend to experience longer review times. Our findings contribute to explaining the gender gap in publication rates and representation.

Women are underrepresented in academia, especially in STEMM fields, at top institutions, and in senior positions. This study analyzes millions of biomedical and life science articles, revealing that female-authored articles spend longer under review than comparable male-authored articles, across most fields.