Research Article

Medicine

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

The Information School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Canada
Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Office of the Dean of Libraries, McGill University, Canada
Department of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Canada
School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, United States
Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Feb 20, 2026

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90049.4

Open access
Copyright information

Figures
Tables
Additional files

4 figures, 28 tables and 1 additional file

Figures

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Measures of submission rate, acceptance rate, and rejection rate with tests of statistical significance.

Logistic regression was used for whether they submitted to an elite journal by individual discipline. Linear regression (mixed-effect model) was used to understand the gender difference in number of submissions, acceptance rate, and desk rejection rate to these journals by individual discipline. We controlled for rank in all regression analysis. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. All odds ratio and coefficient values are based on women over men. MS: Medical Sciences; NSE: Natural Sciences and Engineering; SS: Social Sciences. ** indicates p < 0.01, * indicates p < 0.05.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Measures of journal consideration, submission rate, and desk rejection rate for most cited papers with odds ratios (women/men).

Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. We used logistic regression to analyze the relationship between gender and the four variables, while controlling for rank. Regression was done by each discipline separately. MS: Medical Sciences; NSE: Natural Sciences and Engineering; SS: Social Sciences; SNP: Science, Nature, PNAS.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Odds ratio (women/men) and mean value for research quality comparison with peers.

Ordinal logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between gender and the rating of research quality while controlling for respondents’ rank. Regression was done at the discipline level. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. MS: Medical Sciences; NSE: Natural Sciences and Engineering; SS: Social Sciences. * indicates p < 0.05.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Reasons for not submitting to top journals, overall and most cited paper, with odds ratios (women/men).

Logistic regression was employed to analyze the relationship between gender and each of the reasons for not submitting. Regression was done by reason and discipline while controlling for rank. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. MS: Medical Sciences; NSE: Natural Sciences and Engineering; SS: Social Sciences. ** indicates p < 0.01, * indicates p < 0.05.

Tables

Appendix 1—table 1

Recategorized academic rank.

Questionnaire categories	New categories	Count
Graduate student	Junior	991
Postdoctoral fellow
Research Associate
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor	Senior	3012
Full Professor
Emeritus Professor
Non-academic respondents	Non-academic	737
No answer and other	Unknowns	65

Appendix 1—table 2

Recategorized research areas to disciplines.

Disciplinary area	Field	Surveyed	Respondents	Analytical sample
Medical Sciences	Biomedical Research	63,335	832	678
	Clinical Medicine	152,056	1394	1134
	Health	12,807	245	208
Natural Sciences and Engineering	Biology	47,539	670	543
	Chemistry	36,830	395	321
	Earth and Space	36,573	576	467
	Engineering and Technology	61,746	559	406
	Mathematics	18,674	275	206
	Physics	46,694	592	475
Social Sciences	Professional Fields	3480	82	66
	Psychology	9885	243	207
	Social Sciences	4354	114	94
Arts and Humanities	Arts	291	9	/
Arts and Humanities	Humanities	475	14	/
Unknown	Unknown	42	2	0
	Total	494,781	6002	4805

Appendix 1—table 3

Summary of response rate of questionnaire adapted from McGill University – Gender Ethnicity Publishing Study Methods Summary technical report (Indiana University Centre for Survey Research 2019).

McGill University – Gender Ethnicity Publishing Study Methods Summary. Technical Report. Unpublished.

Disposition	Definition	Count	Response rate (RR2)
Complete (I)	Respondent completed survey	4944	1.2%
Partial (P)	Respondent answered at least one question item but did not complete survey	1058
Implicit Refusal (R)	Respondent clicked survey link but did not answer any items	1655
Nothing Returned (UH)	Respondent did not respond to survey; it is unknown if any email messages were read	374,341
Undeliverable (UO)	Recruitment message was not received by intended recipient due to email and/or mailing returns	108,163
Not Eligible	Sample member indicated they were not eligible to participate; also includes cases of authors who have deceased since their publication listed in the database	58
Total		490,219

Appendix 1—table 4

Gender composition of population, respondents, and analysis sample.

Domain	Population/surveyed		Respondents		Analytical sample
Domain	N	%	N	%	N	%
Men	286,571	57.9	3508	58.4	2832	58.9
Women	129,592	26.2	1774	29.6	1435	29.9
Unknown	78,618	15.9	720	12.0	538	11.2
All	494,781	100.0	6002	100.0	4805	100.0

Appendix 1—table 5

Discipline composition of population, respondents, and analysis sample.

Domain	Population/surveyed		Respondents		Analytical sample
Domain	N	%	N	%	N	%
MS	228,198	46.1	2471	41.2	2020	42.0
SS	17,719	3.6	439	7.3	366	7.6
NSE	248,098	50.1	3069	51.1	2419	50.3
AH	766	0.2	23	0.4		0.0
All disciplines	494,781	100.0	6002	100.0	4805	100.0

Appendix 1—table 6

Discipline, gender, and academic rank composition of analytical sample.

	MS (N = 2020)				NSE (N = 2419)				SS (N = 366)
Rank/role	Women		Men		Women		Men		Women		Men
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Junior	200	24.5	228	18.9	147	27.6	360	19.1	31	18.7	25	12.5
Senior	465	57.0	762	63.3	281	52.7	1219	64.6	124	74.7	161	80.5
Non-academic	131	16.1	189	15.7	100	18.8	294	15.6	10	6.0	13	6.5
Unknown	20	2.5	25	2.1	5	0.9	13	0.7	1	0.6	1	0.5

Appendix 1—table 7

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender ever submitted.

S.N.P.	Women				Men
S.N.P.	No	Yes	No response	%Yes	No	Yes	No response	%Yes
MS	504	303	9	37.5%	555	636	13	53.4%
NSE	328	194	11	37.2%	1000	860	26	46.2%
SS	109	55	2	33.5%	110	87	3	44.2%
All disciplines	941	552	22	37.0%	1665	1583	42	48.7%
NC.SA.	Women				Men
NC.SA.	No	Yes	No response	%Yes	No	Yes	No response	%Yes
MS	670	137	9	17.0%	902	283	19	23.9%
NSE	429	91	13	17.5%	1476	375	35	20.3%
SS	158	5	3	3.1%	181	14	5	7.2%
All disciplines	1257	233	25	15.6%	2559	672	59	20.8%
NEJM.C	Women				Men
NEJM.C	No	Yes	No response	%Yes	No	Yes	No response	%Yes
MS	603	204	9	25.3%	795	390	19	32.9%
NSE	505	12	16	2.3%	1816	34	36	1.8%
SS	152	11	3	6.7%	182	13	5	6.7%
All disciplines	1260	227	28	15.3%	2793	437	60	13.5%

Appendix 1—table 8

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—odds ratio (women to men) values for the probability of submitting.

Journal	Discipline	Odds ratio	Std. Err.	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	0.54	0.05	–6.45	0.000	0.45	0.65	1937
	NSE	0.70	0.07	–3.40	0.001	0.58	0.86	2356
	SS	0.62	0.14	–2.13	0.033	0.40	0.96	355
	All disciplines	0.61	0.04	–7.32	0.000	0.54	0.70	4648
NC.SA.	MS	0.65	0.08	–3.68	0.000	0.52	0.82	1931
	NSE	0.81	0.11	–1.60	0.110	0.63	1.05	2346
	SS	0.35	0.19	–1.91	0.056	0.12	1.02	352
	All disciplines	0.70	0.06	–4.06	0.000	0.59	0.83	4629
NEJM.C.	MS	0.71	0.07	–3.35	0.001	0.58	0.87	1931
	NSE	1.22	0.42	0.59	0.558	0.63	2.39	2342
	SS	1.08	0.46	0.18	0.859	0.47	2.50	352
	All disciplines	0.75	0.07	–2.95	0.003	0.62	0.91	4625

Appendix 1—table 9

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—mean number of manuscript submissions.

Average number of submissions to S.N.P.	Women					Men
Average number of submissions to S.N.P.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	303	3.60	3.51	1	34	636	5.12	5.41	1	35
NSE	194	3.04	2.38	1	13	860	3.95	3.95	1	30
SS	55	2.80	3.36	1	19	87	4.22	5.49	1	30
All disciplines	552	3.32	3.15	1	34	1583	4.43	4.71	1	35
Average number of submissions to NC.SA.	Women					Men
Average number of submissions to NC.SA.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	137	1.74	1.34	1	10	281	1.90	1.24	1	8
NSE	89	1.65	1.08	1	6	374	1.86	1.57	1	17
SS	5	1.00	0.00	1	1	14	1.71	1.14	1	5
All disciplines	231	1.69	1.23	1	10	14	1.71	1.14	1	5
Average number of submissions to NEJM.C.	Women					Men
Average number of submissions to NEJM.C.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	203	1.89	1.34	1	10	389	2.25	2.00	1	16
NSE	12	1.67	1.44	1	6	34	1.76	1.48	1	8
SS	11	1.64	0.92	1	4	13	1.15	0.38	1	2
All disciplines	226	1.86	1.32	1	10	436	2.18	1.95	1	16

Appendix 1—table 10

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—mixed linear regression.

Journal	Discipline	Coefficient	Std. dev.	t	p > \|t\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	–1.46	0.34	–4.26	0.000	–2.14	–0.79	921
	NSE	–0.80	0.30	–2.69	0.007	–1.39	–0.22	1042
	SS	–1.35	0.84	–1.61	0.110	–3.00	0.31	140
	All disciplines	–1.19	0.22	–5.41	0.000	–1.62	–0.76	2103
NC.SA.	MS	–0.19	0.13	–1.41	0.161	–0.45	0.08	411
	NSE	–0.19	0.18	–1.09	0.276	–0.54	0.16	459
	SS	–0.71	0.54	–1.32	0.207	–1.86	0.44	19
	All disciplines	–0.20	0.11	–1.89	0.059	–0.42	0.01	889
NEJM.C.	MS	–0.36	0.15	–2.39	0.017	–0.65	–0.06	575
	NSE	–0.08	0.50	–0.17	0.867	–1.10	0.93	46
	SS	0.59	0.32	1.84	0.081	–0.08	1.26	24
	All disciplines	–0.31	0.14	–2.23	0.026	–0.58	–0.04	645

Appendix 1—table 11

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts accepted’—mean acceptance rate.

Acceptance rate of S.N.P.	Women					Men
Acceptance rate of S.N.P.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	262	0.30	0.35	0	1	565	0.30	0.34	0	1
NSE	177	0.25	0.35	0	1	798	0.24	0.34	0	1
SS	53	0.28	0.38	0	1	80	0.24	0.36	0	1
All disciplines	492	0.28	0.35	0	1	1443	0.26	0.34	0	1
Acceptance rate of NC.SA.	Women					Men
Acceptance rate of NC.SA.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	137	0.27	0.39	0	1	281	0.32	0.39	0	1
NSE	89	0.30	0.41	0	1	374	0.36	0.42	0	1
SS	5	0.20	0.45	0	1	14	0.24	0.42	0	1
All disciplines	231	0.28	0.40	0	1	669	0.34	0.41	0	1
Acceptance rate of NEJM.C.	Women					Men
Acceptance rate of NEJM.C.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	202	0.27	0.38	0	1	388	0.26	0.36	0	1
NSE	12	0.17	0.33	0	1	34	0.18	0.34	0	1
SS	11	0.39	0.47	0	1	13	0.04	0.14	0	0.5
All disciplines	225	0.27	0.38	0	1	435	0.25	0.36	0	1

Appendix 1—table 12

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts accepted’—linear regression.

Journal	Discipline	Coefficient	Std. dev.	t	p > \|t\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.989	–0.05	0.05	810
	NSE	0.01	0.03	0.48	0.628	–0.04	0.07	964
	SS	0.05	0.07	0.78	0.435	–0.08	0.18	132
	All disciplines	0.01	0.02	0.57	0.566	–0.03	0.05	1906
NC.SA.	MS	–0.05	0.04	–1.15	0.252	–0.13	0.03	411
	NSE	–0.07	0.05	–1.42	0.156	–0.17	0.03	459
	SS	–0.04	0.22	–0.16	0.877	–0.51	0.44	19
	All disciplines	0.06	0.03	–1.78	0.075	–0.12	0.01	889
NEJM.C.	MS	0.02	0.03	0.65	0.517	–0.04	0.08	573
	NSE	–0.02	0.11	–0.15	0.885	–0.25	0.21	46
	SS	0.43	0.15	2.79	0.011	0.11	0.74	24
	All disciplines	0.03	0.03	1.07	0.287	–0.03	0.09	643

Appendix 1—table 13

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts rejected’—mean desk rejection rate.

Desk rejection rate of S.N.P.	Women					Men
Desk rejection rate of S.N.P.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	262	0.76	0.34	0	1	565	0.79	0.28	0	1
NSE	172	0.81	0.31	0	1	764	0.79	0.29	0	1
SS	46	0.85	0.26	0	1	75	0.87	0.24	0	1
All disciplines	480	0.79	0.32	0	1	1404	0.80	0.28	0	1
Desk rejection rate of NC.SA.	Women					Men
Desk rejection rate of NC.SA.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	105	0.80	0.34	0	1	210	0.77	0.35	0	1
NSE	64	0.72	0.38	0	1	266	0.74	0.37	0	1
SS	4	0.75	0.50	0	1	11	0.86	0.25	0	1
All disciplines	173	0.77	0.36	0	1	487	0.76	0.36	0	1
Desk rejection rate of NEJM.C.	Women					Men
Desk rejection rate of NEJM.C.	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max	Obs	Mean	Std. dev.	Min	Max
MS	161	0.68	0.40	0	1	320	0.67	0.40	0	1
NSE	9	0.72	0.44	0	1	28	0.71	0.43	0	1
SS	6	0.83	0.26	0.5	1	13	0.88	0.30	0	1
All disciplines	176	0.68	0.39	0	1	361	0.68	0.40	0	1

Appendix 1—table 14

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts rejected’—linear regression.

Journal	Discipline	Coefficient	Std. dev.	t	p > \|t\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	–0.03	0.02	–1.33	0.185	–0.07	0.01	809
	NSE	0.03	0.03	1.01	0.314	–0.02	0.07	928
	SS	0.00	0.05	–0.09	0.928	–0.09	0.09	119
	All disciplines	0.00	0.02	–0.31	0.757	–0.04	0.03	1856
NC.SA.	MS	0.04	0.04	0.96	0.336	–0.04	0.12	311
	NSE	–0.03	0.05	–0.61	0.542	–0.14	0.07	326
	SS	–0.14	0.20	–0.71	0.494	–0.59	0.30	15
	All disciplines	0.01	0.03	0.17	0.867	–0.06	0.07	652
NEJM.C.	MS	0.02	0.04	0.37	0.708	–0.06	0.09	467
	NSE	0.03	0.17	0.18	0.862	–0.32	0.38	37
	SS	–0.09	0.17	–0.53	0.607	–0.45	0.27	19
	All disciplines	0.01	0.04	0.33	0.741	–0.06	0.09	523

Appendix 1—table 15

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting a manuscript to journal name taken from response to the previous question’—number of respondents and percentage selecting response by discipline and gender.

Reasons for not submitting to S.N.P.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Women		Men		Women
	Total	%Yes	Total	%Yes	Total	%Yes	Total	%Yes	Total	%Yes	Total	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	501	36%	553	41%	328	37%	998	27%	109	33%	110	30%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	501	61%	553	55%	328	46%	998	49%	109	72%	110	59%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	501	52%	553	50%	328	53%	998	44%	109	53%	110	40%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	501	56%	553	63%	328	64%	998	70%	109	58%	110	69%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	501	9%	553	13%	328	16%	998	17%	109	7%	110	8%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	501	7%	553	7%	328	9%	998	5%	109	6%	110	5%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	501	6%	553	4%	328	8%	998	5%	109	6%	110	5%
Reasons for not submitting to NC.SA.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Women		Men		Women
	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	667	22%	894	23%	427	21%	1467	15%	157	12%	180	17%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	667	46%	894	37%	427	33%	1467	34%	157	61%	180	53%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	667	32%	894	29%	427	37%	1467	28%	157	29%	180	23%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	667	42%	894	47%	427	53%	1467	52%	157	39%	180	51%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	667	9%	894	14%	427	13%	1467	17%	157	10%	180	11%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	667	9%	894	9%	427	10%	1467	8%	157	6%	180	4%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	667	4%	894	4%	427	3%	1467	3%	157	3%	180	2%
Reasons for not submitting to NEJM.C.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Women		Men		Women
	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	602	34%	791	31%	503	6%	1801	4%	151	15%	180	8%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	602	83%	791	80%	503	84%	1801	86%	151	93%	180	90%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	602	38%	791	33%	503	8%	1801	5%	151	21%	180	12%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	602	37%	791	35%	503	13%	1801	13%	151	24%	180	27%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	602	5%	791	7%	503	3%	1801	4%	151	5%	180	6%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	602	5%	791	6%	503	2%	1801	2%	151	5%	180	3%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	602	4%	791	4%	503	0%	1801	0%	151	2%	180	1%

Appendix 1—table 16

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting a manuscript to journal name taken from response to the previous question’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Reasons why did not consider submitting papers to top journals	S.N.P.				NC.SA.				NEJM.C.
	MS	NSE	SS	All displ.	MS	NSE	SS	All displ.	MS	NSE	SS	All displ.
Work was not of high enough quality	0.83	1.59^†	1.04	1.12	0.91	1.51^†	0.60	1.08	1.10	1.51	1.69	1.21
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	1.27	0.94	1.84*	1.14	1.42^†	1.01	1.41	1.24^†	1.20	0.92	1.41	1.08
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	1.24*	1.47^†	1.69*	1.26^†	1.13	1.41^†	1.27	1.26^†	1.18	1.60*	1.71	1.31^†
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	0.74*	0.72*	0.58	0.72*	0.82	1.02	0.60*	0.87	1.06	1.01	0.81	1.01
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	0.61*	0.93	0.92	0.78	0.58^†	0.74	0.90	0.68^†	0.71	0.81	0.80	0.76
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	1.02	1.70*	1.31	1.32	1.00	1.17	1.34	1.09	0.88	1.09	1.34	0.97
I was advised against submitting to this journal	1.30	1.69*	1.37	1.48*	0.87	0.77	1.73	0.87	1.24	1.11	1.52	1.25
I was unaware of this journal	^‡No one reported they were unaware of the top journals

*

indicates p < 0.05.
†

indicates p < 001.
‡

Insufficient sample.

Appendix 1—table 17

Question: ‘For your published manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to a journal other than ?’—percentage by discipline, and gender.

Discipline	Women				Men
Discipline	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	370	432	802	53.9%	559	616	1175	52.4%
NSE	273	248	521	47.6%	1038	814	1852	44.0%
SS	80	84	164	51.2%	101	92	193	47.7%
All disciplines	723	764	1487	51.4%	1698	1522	3220	47.3%

Appendix 1—table 18

Question: ‘For your published manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to a journal other than ?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Other journals	F/M odds ratio	Std. err	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
MS	1.07	0.100	0.67	0.50	0.89	1.28	1914
NSE	1.12	0.113	1.14	0.26	0.92	1.37	2351
SS	1.16	0.250	0.68	0.50	0.76	1.77	351
All disciplines	1.10	0.072	1.40	0.16	0.96	1.25	4616

Appendix 1—table 19

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Consider submitting to S.N.P.	Women				Men
Consider submitting to S.N.P.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	721	76	797	9.5%	1029	143	1172	12.2%
NSE	478	40	518	7.7%	1702	148	1850	8.0%
SS	157	6	163	3.7%	185	13	198	6.6%
All disciplines	1356	122	1478	8.3%	2916	304	3220	9.4%
Consider submitting to NC.SA.	Women				Men
Consider submitting to NC.SA.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	743	32	775	4.1%	1082	46	1128	4.1%
NSE	486	17	503	3.4%	1747	47	1794	2.6%
SS	161	1	162	0.6%	194	0	194	0.0%
All disciplines	1390	50	1440	3.5%	3023	93	3116	3.0%
Consider submitting to NEJM.C.	Women				Men
Consider submitting to NEJM.C.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	749	42	791	5.3%	1078	73	1151	6.3%
NSE	500	2	502	0.4%	1788	3	1791	0.2%
SS	163	0	163	0.0%	192	2	194	1.0%
All disciplines	1412	44	1456	3.0%	3058	78	3136	2.5%

Appendix 1—table 20

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Journal		W/M odds ratio	Std. err	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	0.79	0.120	–1.53	0.126	0.59	1.07	1907
	NSE	0.96	0.181	–0.21	0.83	0.66	1.39	2342
	SS	0.54	0.275	–1.21	0.227	0.20	1.47	355
	All disciplines	0.83	0.096	–1.59	0.112	0.66	1.04	4604
NC.SA.	MS	1.01	0.240	0.05	0.961	0.64	1.61	1844
	NSE	1.05	0.321	0.16	0.873	0.58	1.91	2272
	SS	Insufficient sample
	All disciplines	1.05	0.196	0.25	0.801	0.73	1.51	4466
NEJM.C.	MS	0.84	0.170	–0.87	0.386	0.56	1.25	1882
	NSE	2.44	2.246	0.97	0.333	0.40	14.84	2268
	SS	Insufficient sample
	All disciplines	0.85	0.166	–0.85	0.393	0.57	1.24	4501

Appendix 1—table 21

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever submit it to the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Submitted to S.N.P.	Women				Men
Submitted to S.N.P.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	37	38	75	50.7%	58	81	139	58.3%
NSE	22	17	39	43.6%	64	80	144	55.6%
SS	1	4	5	80.0%	5	8	13	61.5%
All disciplines	60	59	119	49.6%	127	169	296	57.1%
Submitted to NC.SA.	Women				Men
Submitted to NC.SA.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	19	14	33	42.4%	25	27	52	51.9%
NSE	13	7	20	35.0%	35	21	56	37.5%
SS	1	0	1	0.0%	0	0	0	0
All disciplines	33	21	54	38.9%	60	48	108	44.4%
Submitted to NEJM.C.	Women				Men
Submitted to NEJM.C.	No	Yes	Total	%Yes	No	Yes	Total	%Yes
MS	29	13	42	31.0%	40	31	71	43.7%
NSE	2	0	2	0.0%	2	0	2	0.0%
SS	0	0	0	0	2	0	2	0.0%
All disciplines	31	13	44	29.5%	44	31	75	41.3%

Appendix 1—table 22

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript, <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever submit it to the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values for the probability of submitting.

Journal	Discipline	W/M odds ratio	Std. err	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	0.75	0.22	–0.99	0.321	0.43	1.32	210
	NSE	0.65	0.24	–1.19	0.234	0.31	1.33	180
	SS	2.50	3.14	0.73	0.465	0.21	29.25	18
	All disciplines	0.74	0.17	–1.35	0.177	0.48	1.15	408
NC.SA.	MS	0.69	0.32	–0.82	0.414	0.28	1.70	84
	NSE	1.06	0.61	0.10	0.918	0.35	3.25	73
	SS	No one submitted to NC.SA.
	All disciplines	0.80	0.29	–0.61	0.540	0.40	1.62	157
NEJM.C.	MS	0.55	0.23	–1.42	0.157	0.24	1.26	111
	NSE	No one submitted to NEJM.C.
	SS	No one submitted to NEJM.C.
	All disciplines	0.57	0.24	–1.35	0.178	0.25	1.29	117

Appendix 1—table 23

Question: ‘Was your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> sent out for peer review before being rejected by the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Sent out for peer review S.N.P.	Women				Men
Sent out for peer review S.N.P.	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej
MS	26	10	36	72.2%	62	19	81	76.5%
NSE	14	3	17	82.4%	58	22	80	72.5%
SS	3	1	4	75.0%	8	0	8	100.0%
All disciplines	43	14	57	75.4%	128	41	169	75.7%
Sent out for peer review NC.SA.	Women				Men
Sent out for peer review NC.SA.	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej
MS	12	2	14	85.7%	21	7	28	75.0%
NSE	7	1	8	87.5%	17	4	21	81.0%
SS	No responses
All disciplines	19	3	22	86.4%	31	11	49	77.6%
Sent out for peer review NEJM.C.	Women				Men
Sent out for peer review NEJM.C.	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej	No	Yes	Total	%DeskRej
MS	5	8	13	38.5%	27	5	32	84.4%
NSE	No responses
SS	No responses

Appendix 1—table 24

Question: ‘Was your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> sent out for peer review before being rejected by the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Journal	Discipline	W/M odds ratio	Std. err	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
S.N.P.	MS	0.48	0.66	0.74	0.46	0.56	3.52	114
	NSE	1.41	0.33	–1.05	0.29	0.12	1.88	95
	SS	Insufficient sample
	All disciplines	1.13	0.41	0.32	0.75	0.55	2.31	221
NC.SA.	MS	0.43	0.38	–0.95	0.34	0.07	2.46	36
	NSE	0.70	0.90	–0.28	0.78	0.06	8.82	27
	SS	No responses
	All disciplines	0.50	0.37	–0.95	0.35	0.12	2.10	63
NEJM.C.	MS	13.07	10.96	3.07	0.00	2.53	67.60	44
	NSE	No responses
	SS	No responses

Appendix 1—table 25

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> to the journals listed below.’—number of respondents and percentage selecting response by discipline and gender.

Reasons for not submitting to S.N.P.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Men		Women		Men
	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	719	25%	1027	30%	475	21%	1696	18%	156	27%	185	18%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	719	45%	1027	44%	475	35%	1696	40%	156	62%	185	60%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	719	45%	1027	44%	475	48%	1696	39%	156	39%	185	30%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	719	53%	1027	53%	475	60%	1696	63%	156	46%	185	57%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	719	8%	1027	9%	475	12%	1697	14%	156	8%	185	11%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	719	7%	1027	6%	475	8%	1697	4%	156	6%	185	3%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	719	5%	1027	3%	475	3%	1696	2%	156	2%	185	2%
Reasons for not submitting to NC.SA.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Women		Men		Women
	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	732	19%	1076	22%	481	14%	1731	13%	159	14%	189	12%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	732	41%	1076	38%	481	31%	1731	33%	159	63%	189	58%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	732	34%	1076	32%	481	38%	1731	30%	159	29%	189	21%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	732	46%	1076	45%	481	52%	1731	55%	159	32%	189	43%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	732	8%	1076	11%	481	10%	1731	12%	159	5%	189	7%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	732	6%	1076	6%	481	6%	1732	5%	159	8%	189	2%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	732	2%	1076	2%	481	2%	1731	2%	159	1%	189	1%
Reasons for not submitting to NEJM.C.	MS				NSE				SS
	Women		Men		Women		Women		Men		Women
	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes	n	%Yes
Work was not of high enough quality	738	25%	1073	28%	495	5%	1771	5%	161	15%	187	7%
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	738	72%	1073	75%	495	85%	1772	86%	161	91%	187	86%
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	738	37%	1073	36%	495	9%	1771	7%	161	18%	187	11%
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	738	44%	1073	42%	495	16%	1771	18%	161	25%	187	30%
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	738	6%	1073	6%	495	4%	1771	4%	161	4%	187	7%
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	738	5%	1073	4%	495	2%	1771	1%	161	5%	187	2%
I was advised against submitting to this journal	738	2%	1073	2%	495	0%	1771	0%	161	1%	187	0%

Appendix 1—table 26

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> to the journals listed below.’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Reasons why did not consider submitting the most cited papers to top journals	S.N.P.				NC.SA.				NEJM.C.
	MS	NSE	SS	All	MS	NSE	SS	All	MS	NSE	SS	All
Work was not of high enough quality	0.75*	1.17	1.63	0.96	0.86	1.00	1.31	0.93	0.83	0.94	2.36*	0.91
Work fell outside the scope of the journal	1.05	0.82	1.15	0.95	1.09	0.93	1.30	1.04	0.86	0.94	1.52	0.92
Work was not groundbreaking or sufficiently novel	1.02	1.39 ^‡	1.48	1.19*	1.05	1.28*	1.81	1.14	1.05	1.28	1.81	1.14
Work would fit better in a more specialized journal	0.99	0.88	0.66	0.90	1.00	0.90	0.64	0.92	1.08	0.92	0.79	1.00
Work would reach a wider audience in another journal	0.96	0.87	0.71	0.89	0.72	0.87	0.76	0.79	0.98	0.85	0.55	0.88
Co-authors wished to submit the manuscript elsewhere	1.13	1.57*	2.26	1.35*	0.99	1.06	4.53*	1.12	1.14	1.41	2.07	1.26
I was advised against submitting to this journal	1.75*	1.51	0.97	1.59*	0.96	1.06	2.27	1.03	1.47	3.52	⁺	1.67
I was unaware of this journal	^†No one reported they were unaware of the top journals

*

indicates p < 0.05.
†

Insufficient sample.
‡

indicates p < 0.01.

Appendix 1—table 27

Question: ‘Compared to my peers, I feel that the quality of my research is’—average rank and count by discipline and gender.

Women
Discipline	Average quality rank	Std. dev	#Good and Excellent	#Average	#Fair and Poor	Total
MS	4.2	0.69	574	74	8	656
NSE	4.0	0.67	352	60	8	420
SS	4.1	0.62	135	18	0	153
All disciplines	4.1	0.68	1061	152	16	1229
Men
Discipline	Average quality rank	Std. dev	#Good and Excellent	#Average	#Fair and Poor	Total
MS	4.1	0.7	841	126	7	974
NSE	4.2	0.6	1363	185	9	1557
SS	4.1	0.8	151	25	6	182
All disciplines	4.1	0.7	2355	336	22	2713

Note: Excellent (5)–Poor (1).

Appendix 1—table 28

Question: ‘Compared to my peers, I feel that the quality of my research is’—ordinal logistic (women to men), controlled for rank.

Disciplines	Odds ratio	Std. err	z	p > \|z\|	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	obs
MS	1.18	0.13	2.40	0.07	0.99	1.40	1630
NSE	0.83	0.09	–1.64	0.04	0.67	0.99	1977
SS	1.13	0.24	0.56	0.58	0.74	1.71	335
All disciplines	1.06	0.07	0.87	0.38	0.93	1.22	3,942

Additional files

MDAR checklist: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/90049/elife-90049-mdarchecklist1-v1.pdf
Download elife-90049-mdarchecklist1-v1.pdf

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Article PDF

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Mendeley

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Chaoqun Ni
Isabel Basson
Giovanna Badia
Nathalie Tufenkji
Cassidy R Sugimoto
Vincent Larivière

(2026)

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

eLife 12:RP90049.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90049.4

Share this article

Cite this article

Measures of submission rate, acceptance rate, and rejection rate with tests of statistical significance.

Measures of journal consideration, submission rate, and desk rejection rate for most cited papers with odds ratios (women/men).

Odds ratio (women/men) and mean value for research quality comparison with peers.

Reasons for not submitting to top journals, overall and most cited paper, with odds ratios (women/men).

Recategorized academic rank.

Recategorized research areas to disciplines.

Summary of response rate of questionnaire adapted from McGill University – Gender Ethnicity Publishing Study Methods Summary technical report (Indiana University Centre for Survey Research 2019).

Gender composition of population, respondents, and analysis sample.

Discipline composition of population, respondents, and analysis sample.

Discipline, gender, and academic rank composition of analytical sample.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender ever submitted.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—odds ratio (women to men) values for the probability of submitting.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—mean number of manuscript submissions.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts submitted’—mixed linear regression.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts accepted’—mean acceptance rate.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts accepted’—linear regression.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts rejected’—mean desk rejection rate.

Question: ‘For each of the journals listed in the table below, please indicate the appropriate number of manuscripts rejected’—linear regression.

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting a manuscript to journal name taken from response to the previous question’—number of respondents and percentage selecting response by discipline and gender.

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting a manuscript to journal name taken from response to the previous question’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Question: ‘For your published manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to a journal other than ?’—percentage by discipline, and gender.

Question: ‘For your published manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to a journal other than ?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever consider submitting it to the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript,<Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever submit it to the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Question: ‘Before publication of your manuscript, <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper>, did you ever submit it to the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values for the probability of submitting.

Question: ‘Was your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> sent out for peer review before being rejected by the journals listed in the table below?’—percentage by discipline, journal, and gender.

Question: ‘Was your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> sent out for peer review before being rejected by the journals listed in the table below?’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> to the journals listed below.’—number of respondents and percentage selecting response by discipline and gender.

Question: ‘Please indicate the reason(s) why you did not consider submitting your manuscript <Title of the respondent’s most cited paper> to the journals listed below.’—odds ratio (women to men) values.

Question: ‘Compared to my peers, I feel that the quality of my research is’—average rank and count by discipline and gender.

Question: ‘Compared to my peers, I feel that the quality of my research is’—ordinal logistic (women to men), controlled for rank.

MDAR checklist

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)