MAY/JUNE 2017 | | 5EDITOR/PUBLISHER:Guy Nolch
COLUMNISTS:David Reneke, Ian Lowe,
Peter Bowditch, Michael Cook,
John Long, Tim HannanPATRONS:Australasian Science is
supported by Nobel Laureate Professor
Peter Doherty and renowned science
broadcaster Robyn Williams,
representing excellence in science and its
communication.EDITORIAL CONTACTS
Control Publications P/L, Box 2155,
Wattletree Rd PO, VIC 3145, Australia
Phone: (03) 9500 0015
E-mail:[email protected]
Web:www.austscience.com
Twitter: @austscience
Facebook: facebook.com/austscienceADVERTISING : Steve Austin
Email: [email protected]
For rates see austscience.com.au/ads
DISTRIBUTION:
Gordon & GotchLtd
PRINT POST APPROVEDPP 331379/
ISSN1442-679X *RRP $9.95 incl. GST
Australasian Science is published six times
per year. The opinions expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent those of
the publisher.CONTRIBUTIONS
The Editor welcomes original articles of
interest to the general public written by
qualified writers on fields within their
expertise. Writers’ guidelines are at
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/
writers-guidelines. Prospective authors
should submit a summary to the Editor
prior to submitting a manuscript.© 2017 Control Publications Pty Ltd
(ABN 46 006591 304). All rights reserved.
Authorisation to mechanically or
electronically copy the contents of this
publication is granted by the publisher to
users registered with Copyright Agency
Ltd. Special requests should be addressed
to Control Publications Pty Ltd.Up FrONT
@austscience facebook.com/austscienceCover Story
The US Special Operations Command commissioned prototype TALOS
suits that would be bulletproof, weaponised, have the ability to
monitor vitals and give soldiers additional strength and perception
(see p.14). Credit: Revision MilitaryGender Bias Extends to Peer Review
Gender bias in science is found not only in pay and seniority but
also in the peer review process.
Science is a tough career, beginning with the long road to completing a PhD and
continuing with issues of short-term funding cycles with low chances of success, and
the reality that a particular area of expertise may limit career progression opportuni-
ties to a few institutions scattered across the globe –not exactly family-friendly stuff.
It’s little wonder, then, that a survey of professional scientists last year (AS, Jan/Feb
2017, p.41) uncovered concerns about fatigue, remuneration and the impacts of cost-
cutting on scientific capability.
Gender equality remains a concern in a sector popularly imagined as the domain of
bearded old men in white coats. When a research career is largely measured by scientific
papers published, the pause that many female scientists face when commencing a family
puts them at a professional disadvantage. Two reports have put this into perspective,
one revealing large pay and seniority discrepancies in science and the other a gender bias
in the peer review process.
The Workplace Gender Equality Agency – a statutory agency of the Australian
government created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 – has captured data
from 12,000 reporting organisations employing more than four million Australians –
40% of the workforce. An analysis of the 2015–16 data by the Bankwest Curtin Economics
Centre (http://tinyurl.com/lsfl8sm) found that a gender imbalance in leadership is
reflected in large gender pay gaps across 19 sectors. While the gender pay gap was lower
in organisations with a balanced representation of women in senior leadership roles, it
surprisingly doubled when female leadership exceeded 80%.
Within the “professional, scientific and technical services” sector, the report found that
27% of key management and senior executives were women –seventh highest among the
19 sectors. However, the gender pay gap for the sector was a startling 27.5%, or $37,
on average –the fourth highest among sectors. Part-timers were paid 6.8% less than men
(ninth) and casuals 32.5% less (second), while graduates were approximately on parity.
Separately, eLife published an analysis of 9000 editors and 43,000 reviewers from
the Frontiers series of journals, which generally disclose the identities of peer reviewers
and editors of articles. The analysis of more than 40,000 articles published in the past
10 years (http://tinyurl.com/mwef6sq) found not only “that women are underrepresented
in the peer-review process” – even after accounting for their underrepresentation in
science generally –but also “that editors of both genders operate with substantial same-
gender preference (homophily)” when selecting reviewers.
However, the study “observed very different patterns of homophily for male and
female editors”, with gender bias widespread among male reviewers but “dominated by
very few highly homophilic editors for women. After removal of their contribution,
homophily became insignificant.”
What this means, the authors conclude, is that gender bias in peer review is likely to
continue even if female involvement in the process reaches parity.
Guy Nolch is the Editor and Publisher of Australasian Science.