Sexist science journal peer reviewer advises women to get men to help with their research
The publisher has since apologised for the 'tone' of the review
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.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.
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.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments