by ecancer reporter Audrey Nailor

If you're involved in science and publishing circles, you've probably been following the recent controversy surrounding sexist comments from a peer reviewer with great interest. But if you're not familiar with the peer review process, you might be wondering what it's all about.

On 27th March 2015, researcher Dr Fiona Ingleby of the University of Sussex received an email from the journal PLoS One. Her paper, which discussed evidence for gender bias in academia, had been rejected.

The reason? An anonymous peer reviewer suggested that Dr Ingleby herself was too biased to examine her data - and should solicit the opinion of a male researcher to provide a more balanced viewpoint.

Dr Ingleby's paper found that male scientists enjoy a better publication record than female scientists, which might be evidence of gender bias in scientific publishing. The reviewer argued that she should have considered the impact of men's superior "stamina" instead.

The rejection also stated that “the qulaity [sic] of the manuscript is por [sic] issues on methodologies and presentation of resulst [sic]”.

Dr Ingleby described herself as "shocked" by the decision, which she published on Twitter. Her tweets quickly captured the attention of scientists and publishers.

PLOS One has stated that they will no longer call upon the services of that peer reviewer. The journal is reconsidering the paper - it is currently in the process of peer review under a new editor - and the editor who made the decision has stepped down.

But those not involved in the tight-knit academic community could be forgiven for wondering what all of this means.

What is peer review and how does it work?

Researchers produce and analyse plenty of data, but their results don't "count" until they have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Funding, promotion, opportunities, respect, credit - many of the rewards a researcher delights in are only awarded for published results.

When researchers complete their work, they send the paper to an academic journal. There, qualified editors determine if the manuscript meets basic criteria for consideration. 

However, editors cannot be experts in every possible research topic. Thus, editors select a panel of qualified peers - experts on the topic addressed by the research - and request their opinion on the paper.

If they agree to review the paper, the peers read the paper carefully and write a detailed review of the work. The peers often know the identity of the paper's author, but authors do not know the identity of their peer reviewers.

The editor then considers the reviews to decide whether the paper is acceptable for publication. Often, reviewers recommend a number of changes to improve the paper, and the editor makes a decision about how to proceed. If one review is negative but another is positive, the editor may decide to break the tie themselves, or seek another opinion. Papers may go through stages of revision until the author, reviewers and editor agree that it is acceptable for publication.

Editors usually have the final say on the fate of the paper, but authors can appeal the editor's decision.

So what's the big deal about the sexist peer review?

In its purest form, peer review is inherently balanced, professional and justified. Even if papers address a controversial topic, such as gender bias, the principles of research and academia state that they should be considered on their merits.

Sometimes, peer reviewers may not agree with the conclusions of the paper. This can be very good for the paper; such peer reviewers will point out flaws in the argument, which, if corrected, will strengthen the paper.

Rarely, peer reviewers may have a professional rivalry with the author of the paper. A careful editor will try to be aware of potential difficulties, and a conscientious reviewer will decline to review papers that may present a conflict of interest - but it's always possible that some personal biases may slip through.

Generally, reviews based on content and academic merit will often transcend personal conflict by their very nature. Almost all researchers wish for their fields to develop and improve. As in applications of law and justice, academic publishing is meant to be impartial, neutral, and evidence-based.

By its very nature, research - particularly scientific research - recognises the importance of a diversity of opinions and perspectives. Further, most scientists are capable of separating personal beliefs or opinions from their examination of observable evidence.

Many members of the community are thus surprised that an academic paper could be rejected on what appear to be irrational or personal reasons. 

Why one bad review doesn't spoil the whole barrel

Some of the uproar has resulted from the fact that this rejection was particularly unfair. The decisions made in the process of rejecting this paper are not common to academic publishing. Generally, papers go out to more than one peer reviewer, so it's unusual to see a rejection based on a single opinion. 

The publishing community has noted several "red flags" in this paper's life history. The general consensus is that the editor handling the manuscript should have noticed that the peer reviewer was not commenting on the scientific content of the paper.

It is particularly unfortunate that the editor was not aware of the irony apparent in the reviewer's comments, especially since the article itself addressed gender bias in scientific publishing. 

Editors aren't expected to understand the minutiae and nuance of every field, but they must be well-informed enough to engage with the topic. As blogger Neuroskeptic wrote in Scientific American, "Editors are not supposed to be a mere relay service, shuttling messages between the authors and the reviewers... editorship is a scientific activity, not just a bureaucratic one."

Based on this, normal publishing practice would be for the editor to seek further opinions.

At ecancermedicalscience, for example, if the editorial team felt that a reviewer's scientific neutrality had been compromised, they would consider the comments in context of the paper's life history, as well as the opinions of other reviewers.

Some of this particular reviewer's comments would be considered simply inappropriate to pass on to the author. 

Constructive criticism builds a stronger field

In a final twist, the anonymous reviewer's comments have had some unintentional consequences. They've brought to light an ugly example of personal bias affecting the process of peer review, in a particularly ironic way.

But as the overlapping scientific and academic publishing communities quickly proved, that sort of behaviour is considered absolutely unacceptable.

Within a few weeks, PLoS One issued a sincere apology - and a promise to do better, including examining and updating their own peer review process. The paper is being peer-reviewed once more. 

Sexism is a particularly difficult topic, in which the principles of scientific neutrality can be strained by political belief. In other fields - famously, in niche journalism - discussions of sexism can quickly turn so ugly that any valuable insights are obscured.

It's a testament to the integrity and principles of science and academia that this necessary discussion occurred, that it was so productive, that it has caused such reflective examination within the community, and that it has had an appropriate and professional conclusion. Many journals are stating their commitment to gender equality, and many editors are joining the discussion to examine whether their own personal biases might affect their responsibilities. It is a heartening example of the community living by its own principles.

ecancermedicalscience has been fortunate in our demonstration of this self-reflection. In a recent survey on "Open Access and Gender Equality" circulated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the editorial team was asked to identify areas where ecancermedicalscience could potentially advocate for gender equality through publishing. 

Luckily enough, the editors were able to put together some ideas - although, in the interest of full discretion, the entirety of our editorial team is female, with the notable exception of Founding Editor Prof Gordon McVie - who adds much-needed balance.

ecancermedicalscience is the open-access journal of ecancer.org. We accept articles relating to all aspects of cancer research.