Abstract:Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Functional Ecology conducted a randomised trial comparing single‐ and double‐blind peer review; a recent analysis of this data found substantial evidence for bias by reviewers. We show that this dataset can also be analysed for editor bias, after controlling for both reviewer bias and paper quality. Our analysis shows that editors tend to be more likely to invite high‐scoring manuscripts for revision or resubmission when the first author is a man from a country with a very high Human Development Index (HDI); first authors who were women or not from very high HDI countries were more likely to be rejected at this stage. We propose that journals consider a triple‐blind review process where neither editors nor reviewers know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers nor editors. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Resumo A Functional Ecology realizou um ensaio com vista a comparar o processo de revisão de artigos com anonimato de revisores e com duplo anonimato (em que autores e revisores desconhecem as respetivas identidades); uma análise recente destes dados encontrou fortes evidências de enviesamento parte dos revisores. Neste artigo mostramos que os mesmos dados podem também ser analisados para avaliar o enviesamento parte de editores, quando a análise tem em conta o enviesamento dos revisores e a qualidade dos artigos. A nossa análise revela que manuscritos com uma pontuação elevada em que o primeiro autor é um homem proveniente de um país com um Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano muito elevado têm maior probabilidade de serem convidados para revisão ou ressubmissão pelo editor; primeiros autores que sejam mulheres ou que não provêm de países com IDH muito elevado têm maior probabilidade de serem rejeitados nesta fase. O nosso estudo sugere que as revistas científicas devem ter em consideração um processo de revisão com 'triplo anonimato', em que editores e revisores desconhecem a identidade dos autores e os autores desconhecem a identidade de revisores e editores.

To reduce editor bias and increase diversity and transparency, editors must be motivated: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).

Editor bias and diversifying psychology: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).

On editor bias and transparency: Reply to Cowan (2024), King (2024), and Thurston and Noor (2024).

Editor bias and transparency in psychology's open science era.

A decolonized science requires bigger, bolder, and less incremental change: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

Citation bias, diversity, and ethics

Toward the advancement of equity in scientific publishing.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Gender inequality and self-publication patterns among scientific editors

What Medical Journal Editing Means to Me

Quantifying the distribution of editorial power and manuscript decision bias at the mega-journal PLOS ONE

Psychology needs more diversity at the level of Editor-in-Chief

Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups

Assessing Drivers of Gender Balance and Racial Makeup of Editorial Board Members in Biomedical Engineering

Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al. (2023)'s analysis makes the case for triple‐blind review

Envisioning a More Inclusive Future for Digital Journalism: A Diversity Audit of Journalism Studies (2013–2021)

Reducing racial bias in scientific communication: Journal policies and their influence on reporting racial demographics.

Editorial Essay: Why Do We Still Have Journals?

Publishing while editor: Transparency and behaviour in public administration journals

Editors handle their collaborators' submissions despite explicit policies