Reacción a "Female researchers experience longer peer review times than male authors in biomedicine and life sciences"

This study confirms much of the previous research on the underrepresentation of women in academia. The authors contribute by corroborating these findings using articles published in biomedical and life science journals. They also add value by employing a large sample and by making relevant distinctions, such as the gender composition of total authorship, first authorship, and corresponding authorship. Notably, they find that female authors experience longer review times regardless of female representation and country, despite the fact that female corresponding authorship is associated with higher readability and after controlling for various determinants of review time.

This finding is consistent with much of the previous literature, although some discrepancies remain. The authors acknowledge some limitations of the study, such as the difficulty of including certain variables given the large sample size, such as for example editor gender. A limitation, not explicitly stated in the article, is the omission of measures of author and institutional affiliation prestige, factors that have been suggested in prior research to influence key scientific outcomes, including publication acceptance and review time.