Sexist science journal peer reviewer advises women to get men to help with their research

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sexist-science-journal-peer-reviewer-advises-women-to-get-men-to-help-with-their-research-10214702.html

Version 0 of 1.

The publisher of a science journal has apologised after a peer reviewer said two female researchers could improve their research by seeking help from “one or two male biologists”.

The review sent to the University of Sussex student read: "It would probably … be beneficial to find one or two male biologists to work with (or at least obtain internal peer review from, but better yet as active co-authors)” to prevent the manuscript from “drifting too far away from empirical evidence into ideologically biased assumptions."

Twitter went into meltdown after evolutionary geneticist Fiona Ingleby shared the review sent to her alongside a rejection letter for her latest research paper.

Shocking reviewer comments received for our MS on gender differences in PhD-postdoc transition based on survey results with @megabugface 1/4

Reviewer’s conclusion: we should get a man’s name on MS to improve it (male colleagues had already read it) (2/4) pic.twitter.com/fhiyzNG0R8

…and this is a bit hypocritical given the reviewer’s own ideological biases throughout the review, for example: (3/4) pic.twitter.com/aJ8aTIRdYL

@FionaIngleby I certainly hope you consulted a man before tweeting this.

.@FionaIngleby Because men are immune to ideologically biased assumptions? Good to know.

@FionaIngleby @chloemiriam Ah yes, the old 'your dissenting position is ideological, whereas my status quo position is neutral'.

Would this reviewer also demand adding female coauthors to male-authored papers to avoid bias? Sadly we'll never know http://t.co/lsclxB1ljY

The writer, whose gender is unknown, went on to claim that it is “not so surprising that on average male doctoral students co-author one more paper than female doctoral students, just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile a bit faster than female doctoral students.”

Ingleyby told ScienceInsider that she and co—author Megan Head Australian National University in Acton chose not to “name and shame” the journal, as the case highlights wider issues at many publications.

After the RetractionWatch website revealed the journal was published by PLOS, it issued an apology, and said an appeal is in process, adding it regretted the “tone, spirit and content” of the review, according to ScienceMag.org.