Scientists Have Paper On Gender Bias Rejected Because They're Both Women

ferrisoxide.com writes: A paper co-authored by researcher fellow Dr. Fiona Ingleby and evolutionary biologist Dr. Megan Head — on how gender differences affect the experiences that PhD students have when moving into post-doctoral work — was rejected by peer-reviewed PLoS Onebecause they didn't ask a man for help.

A (male) peer reviewer for the journal suggested that the scientists find male co-authors, to prevent "ideologically biased assumptions." The same reviewer also provided his own ironically biased advice, when explaining that women may have fewer articles published because men's papers "are indeed of a better quality, on average," "just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile race a bit faster." PLoS One has apologized, saying, "We have formally removed the review from the record, and have sent the manuscript out to a new editor for re-review. We have also asked the Academic Editor who handled the manuscript to step down from the Editorial Board and we have removed the referee from our reviewer database."

Comments

Sad commentary on publishing in research

[WillAffleckUW]

I'll bet the reviewers repeat ideas women in their committees say, as if they came up with the ideas themselves, too.

Obviously

[The-Ixian]

Men work harder than women because they're healthier and have more stamina

Ummmm...check The Onion....?

[Token]

My first and main reaction to this story is hilarity. The PC world appears to be well on the way to self-cannibalism...