EXPERT REACTION: Female scientists spend longer under peer-review

Publicly released:
New Zealand; International
Unsplash
Unsplash

US researchers may have found one reason why female researchers publish fewer papers than their male counterparts on average. After reviewing millions of studies published in biomedical and life science journals, they found the median amount of time studies 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 researchers estimate that for every 50 papers published by a female author, she will have spent on average 350–750 days longer than her male counterparts waiting for reviews and/or revising manuscripts.

Expert Reaction

These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated.

Professor Merryn Tawhai, Director, Auckland Bioengineering Institute, Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland

"As Deputy Editor in Chief for a journal I have witnessed the increasing challenge in securing reviewers for manuscript submissions.

"This article evaluated the total time “in the peer review system” from submission to acceptance data, which includes the time to secure reviewers.

"One issue might relate to male academics still having higher profile than women academics, and reviewers being more receptive to reviewing manuscripts from people whose work they know. This would mean a longer time from submission to review for authors who are less well known or established (including authors from lower income countries, which this study points out also suffer the same issue). We cannot tell whether this is correct from this particular study, as it did not examine the different phases of review."

Last updated:  23 Jan 2026 10:26am
Contact information
Contact details are only visible to registered journalists.
Declared conflicts of interest No COI statement provided.

Attachments

Note: Not all attachments are visible to the general public. Research URLs will go live after the embargo ends.

Research PLOS, Web page
Other Science Media Centre Taiwan, Web page Expert Reaction (Taiwan)
Other Science Media Centre Korea, Web page Expert Reaction (Korea) titled: "의약 분야 여성 연구자, 동료평가 시스템에서의 차이"
Journal/
conference:
PLOS Biology
Research:Paper
Organisation/s: University of Bath, UK
Funder: This work was partially funded by a Data Analytics grant (to D.A.P.) funded by the “Harnessing the Data Revolution for Fire Science” project (https://hdrfs.epscorspo.nevada.edu), which is funded by grant OIA-2148788 from the National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Media Contact/s
Contact details are only visible to registered journalists.