A recent large‑scale study published in PLOS Biology confirms gender bias in academia by showing that scientific papers led by women as first or corresponding authors experience longer delays in the peer‑review process than those led by their male colleagues. Researchers in the Biology Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, analyzed more than 36 million academic articles in over 36,000 biomedical and life science journals.

Peer‑Review Delay Inequity

Using articles indexed in PubMed, the analysis found that average review time is between 7.4% and 14.6% longer for papers authored by women than for those submitted by men. This gender gap is widespread and affects most disciplines, regardless of female representation in each field.

Women are also underrepresented as lead authors in biomedical publications. Although their participation has increased over time, they still appear less often than men in authorial leadership positions. That inequality contributes to cumulative differences in scientific productivity, academic visibility, and long‑term career opportunities.

These findings are unsurprising to Maite Paramio, president of the Association of Women Researchers and Technologists (AMIT). “We have always suspected — as in other professions, you are more recognized when you are better known — that women have been more invisible and therefore everything has been more difficult. That it takes longer to publish our work is something women working in science have always intuited; now this scientific study backs up with data the differential editorial treatment,” she told Univadis Spain, part of the Medscape’s Professional network.

Root Causes Identified

The authors examined multiple potential explanatory factors but ruled out several as primary causes, including year of publication, article length and readability. None of these factors explain the persistent gap in review times between men and women. Controlling for number of authors, field of study, or country of affiliation also does not eliminate the difference. That suggests the inequality is not due to easily measured structural characteristics but to more complex or unobserved factors within editorial processes.

Factors hindering women’s careers:

• Greater likelihood of leaving academia, voluntarily or involuntarily. Women face obstacles their male colleagues do not, including social expectations around household responsibilities and child care.
• Imbalanced workload. On average, women take on more teaching and service duties than their male peers, limiting time available for research.
• Lower recognition and visibility. Women receive less credit for their work, are more likely to be excluded as coauthors, obtain less funding, earn lower pay, and have fewer opportunities for tenure and promotion.

Boost Women’s Visibility

AMIT emphasizes the need to increase women’s visibility. “In medicine, almost 70% are women, but their representation is around 20% so we demand that in all scientific conferences, and scientific societies, if it is not 50%, it should at least come close. Also, remember that, in Spain, we have a parity law. Publications are key for researchers seeking positions and funding to continue their careers,” Paramio said.

A key measure to mitigate the effect would be adopting double‑blind peer review, a system in which reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, eliminating the bias associated with the signatory’s visibility.

Not All Bad News

Although the gap is widespread across most of the 124 disciplines analyzed, the study also shows progress: Female representation in PubMed has risen steadily, from 2.3% in 1900-1904 to 38.7% in 2020-2024. Still, understanding bias in editorial systems is essential because researchers’ professional advancement depends heavily on publications.

In biomedical research, the areas where review time for women is less affected or even reversed include biology, molecular biology, chemistry, biophysics, hospitals, women’s health, genetics, health services, environmental health, and computational biology.

Documenting the different dimensions of the gender gap in academia will help the academic community recognize them and design mitigation strategies.

Paramio declared having no conflicts of interest. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, part of the Medscape Professional Network.