Ecological Entomology @Ecol_Ent is recruiting new Associate Editors. If you are interested in getting experience being an editor please consider applying. Details here

RT @mjfree: THIS WINS THE DAY!!!!

RT @elinamantyla: Srivastava et al. Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind re….

RT @Ecol_Ent: An exciting development from @EcolEnt - we are now switching to double-anonymous reviewing!. The initiative will support @Roy….

RT @sTeamTraen: This little 2006 article by @AndyPurvisNHM contains the best bit of comic timing I've ever seen in an academic paper. https….

RT @nickteetsUK: Tenure track job alert! Our department is hiring an assistant professor in Arthropod Molecular Biology. We welcome anyone….

RT @LSEImpactBlog: 💥New: Double-anonymous review is an effective way of combating status bias in scholarly publishing . #PeerReviewWeek23 @….

RT @datadryad: Dryad’s membership model for academic institutions is changing. We’re inviting community input on how we can make sure the….

RT @datadryad: We’re looking for #ResearchData leaders to join the Dryad Board of Directors. Are you passionate about research data and eag….

RT @mluckovichajc:

Tagging @FunEcology and the @BritishEcolSoc who supported this project.

Nature wrote about our peer review work: original paper here:

RT @Boardgame_girl1: This is PHE-NOM-ENAL! 😂 😂 😂. Well done, @DragonsTomb!

RT @StephenBHeard: People worry a lot about bias in peer review. The bad news: it's real (but doesn't work quite like I expected). The good….

RT @FunEcology: ⚖️The double-anonymous peer review trial indicates reviewer bias is reduced when author identities are anonymised: when rev….

Full paper is here: summary on the @FunEcology blog here:

We also argue that offering *optional* blinding of author identities, as some journals allow, is unlikely to substantially reduce these biases because authors from high income countries are less likely to choose to be anonymized.

Anonymizing author identities (e.g., double-anonymous review) reduces this bias, making the peer review process more equitable.

We conclude that there is strong evidence that authors from higher income and/or English-speaking countries receive significant benefits (large positive bias) to being identified to reviewers during peer review process.

Papers by authors from English-speaking countries were 21% more likely to be invited to resubmit when authors are identified to reviewers, but not when authors were anonymous (this difference is not independent of HDI)