Ladies, Gentlemen, and Scientific Publication at the Royal Society, 1945–1990

Camilla Mørk Røstvik,Aileen Fyfe

doi:10.16995/olh.265

Abstract

This paper extends the scholarship on gender and scientific authorship by exploring women’s involvement in editorial decision-making. Prior to 1945, women scientists could submit their work to the journals of the Royal Society, but they were excluded from all editorial and evaluation roles: such gate-keeping roles were reserved for Fellows of the Society. We draw upon the Society’s archive to examine the experiences of female authors, referees, and communicators in the period after women were admitted to the Fellowship. We investigate the involvement of women in both anonymous roles (e.g. as referees), and in publicly visible positions of editorial responsibility (e.g. as communicators, and committee chairs). We reveal that women were better represented in both types of roles in the 1950s than in the 1970s and 1980s. These findings are pertinent to current debates about bias in the peer-review system, and the gendering of academic reward and recognition structures.

Highlights

It is often argued that one of the issues underlying women’s limited success in terms of promotions and publication rates in academia is the paucity of women participating in the processes by which scholarship is evaluated (Hancock & Baum 2010; Kasten 1984; Park 1996, Bosquet, Combes & Garcia-Penelosa 2013; Baker 2012; de Groot 1997; King et al 2016; Helmer et al 2017)
Prior to 1945, women scientists could submit their work to the journals of the Royal Society, but they were excluded from all editorial and evaluation roles: such gate-keeping roles were reserved for Fellows of the Society
We reveal that women were better represented in both types of roles in the 1950s than in the 1970s and 1980s. These findings are pertinent to current debates about bias in the peerreview system, and the gendering of academic reward and recognition structures

Summary

Introduction

It is often argued that one of the issues underlying women’s limited success in terms of promotions and publication rates in academia is the paucity of women participating in the processes by which scholarship is evaluated (Hancock & Baum 2010; Kasten 1984; Park 1996, Bosquet, Combes & Garcia-Penelosa 2013; Baker 2012; de Groot 1997; King et al 2016; Helmer et al 2017). Our analysis of women’s participation in the editorial and publication processes of the Royal Society of London adds a historical dimension to contemporary debates about the role of gender in the peer review system, and in academic knowledge-production more generally (Bernstein 2015; Wennerås & Wold 1997; Katz, Gutierrez & Carnes 2014). Efforts have been made recently to achieve gender balance in publicly-visible roles of scholarly evaluation, such as university recruitment, promotions, and grantfunding panels. Schemes such as Athena SWAN and Juno have helped raise awareness, but they have no leverage over the world of scholarly publishing, where journals are managed by a myriad of learned societies, university presses and commercial firms. Hidden behind scholarly norms of confidentiality and anonymity, numerous academics act as referees, or peer reviewers, of papers submitted for editorial consideration (Scholarly Communication and Peer Review 2015)

Methods

Findings

Conclusion