Amber Budden and her colleagues analysed papers published in two ecology journals. One, (Behavioural Ecology) switched to double-blind review in 2001 while the other (Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology) uses the traditional method of single-blind review, where reviewers remain anonymous but authors do not.

In the four years which followed the introduction of double-blind review, the overall number of papers published by Behavioural Ecology increased relative to the preceding four years. The proportion of papers with a female first authors also showed a small but significant increase of 7.9%. As there was no comparable change in authors publishing in Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, the authors concluded that the observed effect was not attributable to a simple increase in the number of women working in the field and could be ascribed to the change in peer review policy.

The figure of 7.9% may seem small, but it is three times greater than the recorded increase in female ecology graduates in the USA across the same time period (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305). Assuming the US pattern reflects an international trend, the authors calculate that the figure of 7.9% actually represents a 33% increase in the representation of female authors.

Journals are often loath to introduce double-blind review, citing the increased administrative load this would incur. However, given the potential such a policy change could have on the representation of women scientists – and possibly also of young, unestablished researchers – it seems that it could have significant benefits for female researchers and increase the number and range of papers published.

The original article was published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution and may be found here.