Female-authored biomedical papers spend longer periods of time under peer review than male-authored studies

A large-scale analysis of millions of biomedical and life science papers has reported longer review-to-acceptance times for female-authored articles than for comparable male-authored work across most disciplines, raising fresh questions about bias

Women remain underrepresented across academia, with the imbalance most visible in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM), in elite institutions and in senior posts. Recent European Commission monitoring has reported that women continue to hold less than one-third of higher academic positions across the European Union, despite gradual progress in many research systems.

Against this backdrop, a large-scale bibliometric study has reported evidence that female-authored research articles in the biomedical and life sciences have taken longer to pass through the peer-review process than comparable papers authored by men. The researchers analysed millions of published articles across a wide range of subject areas, and compared time spent under review for articles with female and male authorship, with the aim of testing whether editorial and referee processes have treated manuscripts differently once they have entered formal assessment.

According to the analysis, female-authored articles spent longer under review than male-authored articles in most fields that the team examined. The effect persisted after the researchers compared papers that were similar in subject area and publication context, which suggested that differences in discipline mix alone did not explain the pattern. While the study did not claim that peer reviewers or editors had acted with deliberate discrimination, it raised the possibility that subtle structural factors, including different thresholds for acceptance, different revision demands, or unequal access to time and support, may contribute to delays.

Peer review remains central to scientific quality control, but it is also a major source of friction in the research pipeline. Journals commonly track the period from submission to acceptance as a proxy for peer-review duration. For researchers, delays in this interval can shape career trajectories because academic appointment, tenure and promotion systems often treat publication rate and authorship position as key signals of productivity and leadership. Even small differences in time-to-acceptance can compound across multiple papers, particularly for early-career scientists who rely on published outputs to secure grants, fellowships and permanent roles.

The findings also intersect with wider evidence that gender inequalities persist across the research workforce, especially at later career stages. Policy monitoring in Europe has continued to describe a ‘glass ceiling’ in academia, with women less likely than men to reach senior research and leadership roles, even in fields where women have entered in large numbers. In that context, systematic delays in publication outcomes, if confirmed across journals and publishers, could represent one mechanism that helps to sustain unequal progression.

The study adds to a broader discussion about how scientific publishing could measure fairness more rigorously. Some funders and publishers have already introduced reforms such as structured peer-review criteria, reviewer training and diversity initiatives for editorial boards. Others have promoted greater transparency around review timelines, with the aim of helping authors to plan submissions and to avoid journals that allow review delays to drift. The authors of the present analysis suggested that publishers could strengthen routine auditing of editorial decisions and review durations by gender, discipline and career stage, and could report these data in aggregate as part of accountability commitments.

The work also raises practical questions about what drives longer review cycles. Longer time-to-acceptance can reflect many factors, including more requests for additional experiments, more rounds of revision, slower reviewer turnaround, or differences in authors’ ability to complete revisions quickly. Each mechanism implies a different intervention. For example, if reviewers and editors request more extensive revisions from women for comparable work, publishers may need to examine decision thresholds and guidance. If revision time accounts for much of the gap, institutions may need to consider whether unequal teaching loads, caring responsibilities or access to mentoring reduce the time available to respond rapidly to reviews.

The researchers argued that review-time disparities matter because peer review is not merely a technical hurdle. It operates as a gatekeeping process that can shape who gains credit, visibility and influence in a field. As scientific organisations continue to invest in equity initiatives, large-scale evidence about publication timelines may help to identify where systems fall short, and where reform could reduce unnecessary delays without compromising standards.

Overall, the analysis has strengthened the case that equity in science depends on more than recruitment and representation. It also depends on whether the machinery of academic evaluation, including peer review and editorial decision-making, operates with consistent expectations for all researchers.

For further reading please visit: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003574