TY - JOUR T1 - Editorial: Gender Bias in Publishing: Double-Blind Reviewing as a Solution? JF - eneuro JO - eNeuro DO - 10.1523/ENEURO.0225-18.2018 VL - 5 IS - 3 SP - ENEURO.0225-18.2018 AU - Christophe Bernard Y1 - 2018/05/01 UR - http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/3/ENEURO.0225-18.2018.abstract N2 - Many studies, commentaries, blogs, etc. point at a gender bias in favor of males for award and acceptance of both grants and publications, respectively (e.g., Wenneras and Wold, 1997; Larivière et al., 2013 and Barres, 2006). According to biaswatchneuro's calculations for the registration at the 2017 Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, the female/male faculty ratio was 39%, and the ratio for trainees was 49%. This difference suggests the existence of gender bias in neuroscience. Of course, there is a time lag between being a trainee and becoming a faculty member, but parity has existed for decades at the trainee level (50% of PhDs in Neuroscience have been earned by women in the US since 1990). Yet, this does not translate at the faculty level. I believe that this issue needs to be solved at the faculty recruitment stage. As a society journal, there is not much that we can really do, except continue to alert the community to this issue.However, scientific journals may take actions to help mitigate gender bias at the publication. If we consider the present 39% … ER -