F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 Last updated: 31 AUG 2017

RESEARCHNOTE
Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals
[version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]
MyrnaLYeverino-Gutirrez,MadelRosarioGonzlez-Gonzlez,RuthCorral-Symes,
OmarGonzlez-Santiago
FacultyofChemicalScience,UniversidadAutonomadeNuevoLeon(UANL),Monterrey,NuevoLeon,Mexico

First published:21Jul2017,6:1167(doi:10.12688/f1000research.11661.1) Open Peer Review

v1
Latest published:21Jul2017,6:1167(doi:10.12688/f1000research.11661.1)

Referee Status:
Abstract
Thisresearchnotedescribesananalysisregardingtheroleofwomenas
editors-in-chiefofenvironmentalsciencejournals.Thelistofjournalsanalyzed InvitedReferees
wasobtainedfromthedatabaseofWebofScience,publishedin2015.This 1 2
databasedoesnotincludeinformationonthenameorgenderofthe
editors-in-chiefofjournals,soawebsearchwasperformed.Theresultsshow version 1

thatgenderinequalityispresentinthisimportantfieldofscience.Causesofthis published report report
21Jul2017
biasmeritmoreandprofoundresearch.Thebiasobservedmaynotapplyto
journalsofothersareasofscience.

1 Karin Amrein,MedicalUniversityofGraz,
Austria

2 Emilio Bruna ,UniversityofFlorida,

USA
UniversityofFlorida,USA

Discuss this article

Comments(0)

Corresponding author:OmarGonzlez-Santiago(omargs28@yahoo.com)
Author roles:Yeverino-Gutirrez ML:Investigation,WritingOriginalDraftPreparation;Gonzlez-Gonzlez MdR:Supervision,Writing
OriginalDraftPreparation;Corral-Symes R:Investigation,WritingReview&Editing;Gonzlez-Santiago O:Conceptualization,Supervision,
WritingReview&Editing
Competing interests:Nocompetinginterestsweredisclosed.
How to cite this article:Yeverino-GutirrezML,Gonzlez-GonzlezMdR,Corral-SymesRandGonzlez-SantiagoO.Women as
editors-in-chief of environmental science journals [version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]F1000Research2017,6:1167(doi:
10.12688/f1000research.11661.1)
Copyright:2017Yeverino-GutirrezMLet al.ThisisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution
Licence,whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.Dataassociated
withthearticleareavailableunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsZero"Norightsreserved"datawaiver(CC01.0Publicdomaindedication).
Grant information:Theauthor(s)declaredthatnograntswereinvolvedinsupportingthiswork.
First published:21Jul2017,6:1167(doi:10.12688/f1000research.11661.1)

Page 1 of 5
 F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 Last updated: 31 AUG 2017

Introduction Table 1. Percentage of women as editors-in-chief of

Gender bias has been observed in several aspects of science, mainly environmental science journals.
in the authorship of scientific papers, first author position, grants
and employment1,2. It is possible that this bias is present for other Impact factor
important positions in science, such as the editorial positions in sci- Total <1 1-2 >2 Test for
entific journals. With this in mind, we determined the percentage of Variable (N=148) (N=27) (N=74) (N=47) trend
women who are editors-in-chief of environmental science journals.
Gender

Methods Female 21.6 33.3 21.6 14.9

The list of journals was obtained from the 2015 Thomson Reuters Male 78.4 66.7 78.4 85.1 0.03
Web of Science database, which groups journals by impact factor P value <0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.01
and area of scientific expertise. We chose journals grouped into
environmental science. Since the name and gender of the editor-in-
chief is not reported in this database, a web search was performed. been previously suggested by other authors and could explain this
The name of the editor-in-chief was obtained from the respective observation3. Childbearing, forming a family, gender expectations,
web page of the journal. In cases where it was not possible to iden- lifestyle choices and career preferences are among these factors.
tify the gender with the name only, a more extensive web search was Other factor could be the scientific area. The percentage of women
performed. The criteria used to identify the gender was a headshot as editors-in-chiefs probably is major in areas where their partici-
on the website of the respective institution, a Researchgate profile, pation is more active, so this analysis should be made with other
or the journal that he or she directs. Differences between genders types of journals that specialize on other fields of science. Finally,
and amongst groups of journals were determined with a chi-square more studies that corroborate and identify causes of this outcome
test. NCSS version 11 was used for statistical analysis. are needed.

Results and discussion Dataset 1. List of journals included in the analysis

A total of 103 environmental science journals were analyzed. Of
these, 22 journals had an impact factor (IF) < 1; 50 journals had http://dx.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11661.d169039
an IF between 1-2; and 31 journals had IF > 2. For 4 journals, it
was not possible to identify the gender of the editor-in-chief. The
list of journals analyzed is available as a dataset. Overall, the per- Data availability
centage of women that were editors-in-chief was 21.6% (Table 1). Dataset 1. List of journals included in the analysis. DOI, 10.5256/
This percentage was different according to the IF of the journals. In f1000research.11661.d1690394
journals with low IF, the percentage of women as editors-in-chief
was 33.3%, in journals with IF between 1-2, this percentage was
21.6%, and in journals with IF > 2, the percentage was 14.9%. The Competing interests
decreasing trend was statistically significant. No competing interests were disclosed.

Women are underrepresented as editors-in-chief of environmental Grant information

science journals and suggests a gender bias. Several factors that The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting
could contribute to underrepresentation of women in science have this work.

References

1. Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al.: Inequities in Academic Compensation by
Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study. Acad Med.
2016; 91(8): 106873.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Larivire V, Ni C, Gingras Y, et al.: Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in
science. Nature. 2013; 504(7479): 211213.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Ceci SJ, Williams WM: Understanding current causes of womens underrepresentation
in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(8): 31573162.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Yeverino-Gutierres ML, Gonzlez-Gonzlez MdR, Corral-Symes R, et al.:
Dataset 1 in: Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals.
F1000Research. 2017.
Data Source

Page 2 of 5
 F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 Last updated: 31 AUG 2017

Open Peer Review

Current Referee Status:

Version 1

Referee Report 31 August 2017

doi:10.5256/f1000research.12595.r24413

Emilio Bruna 1,2

1CenterforLatinAmericanStudies,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL,USA
2DepartmentofWildlifeEcologyandConservation,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL,USA

Thisstudyaddressesanimportanttopic-thegenderbalanceatthehighestlevelsofjournaleditorial
leadership.Theredatacollectionandanalysesarestraightforwardandtechnicallysound.Whilethereis
valueindocumentingthegenderratioofeditors-in-chief,however,thestudydoesn'tplacetheseresultsin
agreatercontext.Thisisbothsurprisinganddisappointinggiventhesubstantialresearchonthetopic
(andverylittleofwhichiscited).Whyfocusonenvironmentalbiology?Howdotheseresultscompare
withthosefromotherfields?Whyistheobservedgenderimbalanceaproblemandwhatcanbedoneto
remedyit?Withoutaddressingthesequestions

Iwouldencouragetheauthorstomovebeyondsimplypresentingthedatatointerpretingand
contextualizingit.Thiswillgreatlyincreasetheimpactoftheirsubstantialeffort.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests:Iamtheco-authorofanarticleonthesametopic:doi:10.7717/peerj.542

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that

Page 3 of 5
 F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 Last updated: 31 AUG 2017

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that
it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined
above.

Referee Report 29 August 2017

doi:10.5256/f1000research.12595.r25001

Karin Amrein
DivisionofEndocrinologyandDiabetology,MedicalUniversityofGraz,Graz,Austria

Inashortresearchnote,Yeverino-Gutierrezandcolleaguesreportinterestingdataontherepresentation
ofwomenaseditorsinchiefinenvironmentalsciencejournals.

Afewmajoraspectsshouldbeclarified:
Intheabstract,theauthorsshouldstatesomespecificresultsoftheiranalysis(no.ofjournals,no.
ofeditors,%femaleetc.)
Themanuscriptisindeedveryshortandwouldbenefitfromsomegreaterdetailforallsections.
Thenumbersmentionedinthetextarediscordanttothenumbersinthetable(e.g.103journals
analyzedvs148).Weredatamissingandifyes,why?
Ithinkitwouldbebettertousetertilesintheanalysisofimpactfactorinordertohavesimilargroup
sizeasopposedtoanarbitrarycutofffortheimpactfactor.
Limitationsshouldbeadded(onlyonetimepoint,onlyonecategory,etc.)
Addtheusedtesttothetablelegend.
Afewminortypos/grammarerrorsarepresent

PS:
Wereanyeffortsmadetocontactthejournalsandobtainmoredetaileddatafromthemorhave
moreinformationabouttheprocessofassignmentforeditorinchief?
Aretheauthorsawareofdataonhowthepercentageofwomeninscientistsorpeopleworkingin
thisfieldis?
Todate,thecategory"EnvironmentalSciences"haswellover200journals.Wereindeedonly148
listedin2015??

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Page 4 of 5
 F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 Last updated: 31 AUG 2017

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests:Nocompetinginterestsweredisclosed.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that
it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined
above.

Page 5 of 5