Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to remain under-represented in academic publishing in the field of cardiology. Some evidence suggests that double-blind peer reviews may mitigate the impact of gender bias. In July 2021, the Journal of Cardiac Failure implemented a process for the conduct of double-blind reviews after previously using single-blind reviews, with the aim of improving author diversity. The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between changes in authorship characteristics and implementation of double-blind reviews. METHODS: Manuscripts were stratified into 3 Eras: March-September 2021 (Era 1: prior to double-blind reviews); March-September 2022 (Era 2); and March-September 2023 (Era 3). All article types except invited editorials were included. Data were abstracted, including names, genders, ranks, and disciplines of the first and senior authors. RESULTS: A total of 310 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3, while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time-around 21%-22%. Even after adjusting for region, article type, first-author discipline, and last-author gender, there was an increase in female first authors over time (P = 0.015). Manuscripts with a female senior author were significantly more likely to have a female first author. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that double-blind peer review may contribute to increased gender diversity of first authors and may highlight areas for future improvement by the Journal and academic publishing in general.

Duke Scholars

Author Robert John Mentz Medicine, Cardiology