GrrlScientist blogs about a recent paper in Trends in Ecology & Evolution that studied the single-blind peer review process to see how female scientists fared under that system versus a double-blind system. They looked at papers published in Behavioral Ecology between 1997 and 2005 since, in 2001, the journal shifted from single-blind peer review to double-blind. After the shift, female first-author papers increased by nearly 8 percent. GrrlScientist says, "I think the commonly used single-blind peer review process is biased against papers whose lead (or sole) author is female, just as the field of science is biased against women in general."
But Larry Moran isn't convinced, saying on his blog that it "doesn't sound right to me." Down in the comments, he clarifies his thoughts:
I am not denying that sexism exists. ... Let's go back and examine the study in Behaviorial Biology. If it turns out that sexism can be demonstrated, then we should be capable of picking out those individual reviewers who rejected papers authored by women before the double blind study was initiated.