PONE-D-24-00453Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of Women reveals a new dimension of gender biasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fontanarrosa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Noemi González Brambila, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript investigates an important question - that of gender bias in publications in a STEMM subject - and introduces a new index to test for gender bias in the contribution to publications. The measure can easily to be extended to examine other biases, and is extremely useful. The dataset is impressive and the results are important and shocking, if unsurprising. The authors argue convincingly that they detect over-contribution by women, and link this to the inherently inequitable structure of the system we work in.

My only question, as I read the manuscript, is addressed in the discussion: the implications of the last author position being more regarded as of higher value than most other positions, at least in some cases (https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435). The authors could present data on last author gender, perhaps compared with first author gender, but given that they include their data and code, others can explore these patterns, so this isn't necessary here.

I appreciate the clear statement of the limitations of the methods on p7.

Overall the manuscript is very easy to read. I recommend:

1. Ensuring that the figures are legible in greyscale

2. Checking that the figure captions match the figures, and that the text matches the figures. I could not match the text in LL290-3 to Fig 3, for example. The measured WCI in the text is 1307, but this doesn't match the violet line in Fig 3A. Can you direct the reader to a figure that shows that women's contributions stabilise at 0.3 to 0.35 (L282)?

3. The results of the KS test are missing (L316).

I also have some very minor comments on the clarity of phrasing.

L47: 'academia' (no initial capital)

L52: 'ponder' doesn't seem to be the right word here. Maybe 'measure', 'estimate' or 'quantify'?

L54, L57: 'with' works better than 'vs.'

L58: should Men's contribution index be in italics, to match L51?

L66: I think over-contribution has been explored, but not quantified.

L76: 'this' not 'it'

L87: it's easier to stick with one term than to tell the reader that two terms mean the same thing

L111: no need to refer to the discussion here.

L116: 'published in the journal Ecology' will do here

L117: a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

L188: 'reported' not 'remarked'

L134: 'within the discipline' or 'within the field' but not both

L145: 'excluded' rather than 'dismissed'

L149: can you use a different word for 'non-occidental'? Later you use 'Global South', which works better.

L166: should 'Publication instances' also be in bold, like other variables?

L189: 'Figure 1 shows an example' is all you need

L205: I think A should be B - please check

L219: cut 'Noticeably'

L231: do you need the full explanation of qq plots? I think you can remove LL231-38.

L245: 'in' not 'under'

L266: no need for 'only'

L296: I was taught that we can never be 100% confident

L309: cut 'Furthermore'

L313: replace 'In the case where' with 'If'

L322: cut 'sex-segregated' because it's not quite accurate

L328: no need for 'and we discuss ...' because this is the discusssion

L344: 'pondered' is not the right word here

L381: replace 'during the analysed time-lapse' with 'during the period we analysed'

L387: 'found' not 'registered'

L388: is 'decayed' correct?

L389: I didn't understand this line.

L391: 'The dearth of women'

L392: no need for the italics

L397-8: can you clarify?

L412: there's a problem in the pdf I received here, with an orphan phrase

L431: maybe 'psychologist Alfred Adler'?

L437: cut 'sometimes' because you have 'may'

L444: 'classical' isn't quite right here

L454: cut 'side'

L458: 'the bias we found' not 'the registered bias'

Reviewer #2: Summary of the research

The research uses descriptive statistics, and a novel index (WCI) to describe gender imbalances in author contribution to the journal Ecology. Following the finding that women are responsible for a higher WCI index than expected by chance, the authors reason that overcompensation (a consequence of gender discrimination), is responsible for the finding over overcontribution. This paper is well-written and the ‘from overcontribution to overcompensation’ theory is well argued. However, there are concerns over the presentation of speculations as conclusive evidence in the ‘final considerations’ section of the paper. A few terms, such as ‘contribution’ and ‘productivity’ could be better defined. The research would benefit from statistical tests (for example, on the change in author compositions over time), and more generally by emphasizing findings from the descriptive statistics which are persuasive for a need to explore gender bias in this field, rather than an overwhelming focus on the WCI which has numerous limitations as an index of contribution.

Major comments

The design of the index to describe gender contributions [L169-L207] is novel and provides an interesting contribution to highlight gender imbalances in the wider field. However, the decision to assume that the last author has the least contribution is controversial. The authors justify this contentious decision [L348], elaborate on the limitations that stem from it, and subsequently acknowledge that the last author tends to represent the senior researcher [L462]. Although meanings of authorship positions vary between disciplines, there is strong evidence that in the field of Ecology, most people view the last author as a senior author. For example: Fox, Ritchey and Paine (2018); Duffy (2017); Weltziin et al. (2006). Furthermore, there is a tendency to perceive the ‘corresponding’ author as having a higher contribution to the research. In its current form, the Women’s Contribution Index does not adequately represent the contribution of the final and/or corresponding author. Attributing the final author a proportionally larger contribution than the preceding authors or taking account of the identity of the corresponding authors, are both possible adjustments that would enhance the validity of the index.

[L290 – L293] The stats comparing observed and expected WCI values in this section of the results are confusing to read. The observed WCI value is stated as a ‘total sum value’, and it is presented adjacent to a ‘mean’ expected value, and then a ‘maximum’ expected value. The conclusions of the paper rest on the finding that the simulated WCI value “did not exceed the observed value of WCI” [L294]. This is currently of great concern as the stated observed value of WCI is 1,307 [L291]. The stated expected WCI value is 1,361, with a maximum of 1,388 [L293]. As currently stated, the observed value is less than the expected value (1,307 < 1,361). Figure 3A suggests an observed value of c1450 from reading the value of the purple vertical line. Is the observed value of the WCI quoted incorrectly in this paragraph?

[L480-L495] The paper is mostly consistent in presenting ‘overcompensation’ as a theory to explain the finding of women’s overcontribution. However in the final considerations section, overcompensation is presented as a cause of overcontribution as though there is conclusive evidence for this theory. This does not follow coherently from the body of the paper. Without presenting ‘overcompensation causing overcontribution’ as a theory that remains to be tested, this paper runs the risk of appearing to satisfy a confirmation bias. The abstract sets out an intention to ‘detect potential gender biases in the authorship of papers and examine the extent of women’s contribution to… scientific production in Ecology’ [L48-L50]. The alternative hypothesis [L217] that the observed WCI value differs from the expected WCI value can be met by either woman’s contribution (i) being lower than expected, or (ii) higher than expected. The descriptive statistics very clearly show women are underrepresented: there are fewer female authors (L255: 31.94%), women account for fewer authorship events (L256: 27.78%), and women have lower average publication instances (L257: 1.41 versus 1.72 for men). If the WCI value was observed to be lower than expected, presumably this would have been interpreted as an example of underrepresentation stemming from discrimination. Rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference in observed versus expected WCI values and arriving at the same conclusion (that women are experiencing discrimination in this field), is potentially concerning. The argument of survivorship bias, and the theory of overcompensation causing overcontribution is convincing, but it is strongly recommended that this theory is presented consistently as a theory, not as a conclusion. The authors make no other suggestions to explain women’s overcontribution, which seems amiss.

In the current state of the paper the quoted observed WCI value is less than the expected value, and the WCI suffers from a potential de-valuing of the last (senior) authorship position. The descriptive statistics alone are persuasive that there is a need to address gender bias in this field. For example, the section on hierarchical organisation of gender bias in the discussion [L378-L399] is very well-written and is very persuasive. The paper could benefit from emphasizing known entities (descriptive stats) rather than speculating on more exploratory stats such as the WCI value.

As the authors acknowledge in the discussion [L457], this research would benefit from including other biographic features. The inclusion of career stages and length of academic trajectories could greatly influence the number of authorship events per author, and position in an author list. I look forward to future efforts to explore this question with this in mind.

Minor comments

The paper repeatedly refers to ‘productivity’ but has not defined productivity. For example, [L128]: ‘a gender inequity of total productivity that exceeds 35%’, [L332] ‘gender disparities in … productivity’, and [L402] ‘requirement bias… increases as productivity increase’. Productivity can mean many things and is not sufficiently defined.

[L93] What is the meaning of ‘stimulation’, in this context?

[L94] “Support” needs the word ‘less’ added in-front, to read ‘less support’.

[L99] “Also true for other genders”. This feels tokenistic. Suggest that either the paper should address the biases experienced by other genders, or this should be removed altogether as it is not the focus of the paper to look at non-binary contributions to, or the biases experienced by non-binary people, in academia.

[L123] Methods. It would be beneficial to know the authors reasons for selecting the field of the ecology and specifically the journal of ecology, as case studies. Are the authors from this field? Do they expect this field to be representative of the wider STEM discipline?

[L130]. “Moreover” can be removed, as presumably literature in physics is also dominated by male scientists mainly from North America and Europe.

[L140] The gender checker process seems robust.

[L146] How many papers were dismissed using this process?

[L158-L167] Gender data overview. The descriptive statistics are well set out and easy to comprehend.

[L209]. Unbiased simulation. This section needs clarity: Did the authors start with fixed ratios of women and men in each authorship list, per paper, and randomise within set authorship lists; or did they compile all female and male names together and then run simulations across all lists combined?

[L224] Define reason for splitting the data set in two subsets: presumably to avoid dependency in the data?

[L252] Typo ‘o’ should be ‘or’.

[L258] Interesting to read that the most common paper type was authored by two males. This could be set in more context of the other common paper types (number of authors and composition).

[L281] Are there any statistical results to show an increase in women’s authorship over time? The trend stabilising in a ratio of women/ total authors around 0.3 and 0.35 is confusing. Do they mean a ratio of women:total authors of 0.3? Why is it 0.3 and 0.35?

[L356] The argument that the last author should not be attributed higher contribution because even if he/she is a senior member they will have more distributed time investment is confusing. The assumptions in this argument for attributing the final author the smallest contribution are as follows: (i) where last author is senior, (ii) seniors will be contributing to many works, (iii) therefore their time is distributed, (iv) therefore they have given the least amount of time to this work. At no point have the authors defined ‘contribution’ as synonymous with ‘time investment’. Contribution can come in many forms; research conception, design, data interpretation, drafting, revisions and guidance to all of these. The time taken to contribute to each of these areas may vary, so the argument that a senior author contributed less because their time is assumed to be more taxed is not strong. Contribution’ is not well described at any point, other than being reflected by author positions in the WCI.

[L367-L371] Discussion of temporal trends would benefit from statistical tests showing the significance of changes in total authorships and women’s authorships over time.

References

Fox, C. W., Ritchey, J. P., & Paine, C. T. (2018). Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and evolution, 8(23), 11492-11507

Weltzin, J. F., Belote, R. T., Williams, L. T., Keller, J. K., & Engel, E. (2006). Authorship in ecology: Attribution, accountability, and responsibility. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(8), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[435:AIEAAA]2.0.CO;2

Duffy, M. A. (2017). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 7(21), 8876–8887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joanna M Setchell

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of Women reveals a new dimension of gender bias

PONE-D-24-00453R1

Dear Dr. Piquer-Rodriguez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudia Noemi González Brambila, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all of the initial review comments very well. Their responses were thoughtful and detailed. They have provided an in depth justification for why they are not changing the weight of the final author - which addresses the key criticism from both reviewers. The final manuscript has addressed many areas that were previously unclear and has corrected a few errors reporting statistical values. The addition of Table 1 is useful, although the formatting is not the easiest visually to interpret.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********