| The peer review process is integral to the dissemination, propagation and refinement of science. It is the practice of subjecting manuscripts to thorough scrutiny and inspection with the intention of publishing and circulating those of the highest quality. This research is an examination of the peer review process and various indicators of scientific success and importance. We look at three main measures of assumed merit: citation frequencies, acceptance/rejection rates and h-indices, each one designed to denote the scientific community's perception of an article, manuscript or author. These measures have previously been shown as susceptible to extraneous influences, unrelated to merit. Here, we explore the presence and impact of these influences. We explore (1) the effect of number of authors, author gender and national language on citation rates, (2) quality ratings and acceptance/rejection rates of a manipulated manuscripts based on author gender, referee gender and referee status, and (3) the difference between genders in terms of use of initials in publications, and h-indices as they are affected by author gender and usage of initials. Our results demonstrate a higher citation rate for multiple authors, with no effect of author gender and language. We found female postdoctoral referees to be more critical, regardless of author gender presented to them. Lastly, our results reveal male authors and authors using initials to publish to have higher h-indices, however, no differences existed in the use of initials between the genders. These trends suggest that author, referee and article attributes may have adverse effects on the various measures of scientific success. The scientific community's recognition and awareness of these potential biases are crucial to their decline. |
