Women in STEM vs. the Publishing Clock: Evidence from 36 million scientific papers

Women in STEM vs. the Publishing Clock: Evidence from 36 million scientific papers.

Imagine finishing your research paper after months, maybe years of hard work. Your research data is strong and well-organized. You submit it to a journal and wait for it to be published. Soon, the days turn into months and months into years, yet you are waiting to publish your research paper. What if I told you that this wait is longer, not because your data are weaker or your paper lacks novelty? This wait is because you are a woman in STEM.

Yes, the scientific world is biased towards women in STEM. Here is the proof. A recent study examined more than 36.5 million articles indexed in PubMed, and the results were striking. 

The study shows that research papers authored by women remain longer in the peer-review section than those authored by men. The finding is not based on a few journals or a single discipline. This has been happening for years across the world. Women’s papers simply take longer to get accepted. 

The Largest Study Ever Confirms the Gender Gap

The global research is dominated by biomedicine and life sciences. This accounts for about 36% of all scientific papers published every year. Yet, to date, no study has examined gender differences in peer review.

The researchers of this study have analyzed submission and acceptance dates for nearly 7.8 million articles published in almost 9,000 journals. They observed who wrote the papers, who supervised them, where the authors were based, how long the articles were, how readable the abstracts were, and how many people were on each author list. 

These results are consistent and hard to ignore. The numbers are telling a clear story. The papers with a woman as a first author are peer reviewed for 101 days on average. Whereas the paper led by men moves faster, closer to 94 days. 

When the corresponding author is a senior woman scientist, the gap widened even further. Articles led by women in both roles have to wait the longest. When all-female teams submit the paper, they have to face longer delays than all-male teams. When measured in percentage, women-authored papers spent roughly 7 to 15% longer in the review pipeline. 

“It’s just a few days”… until it isn’t

At first, it does not sound like a big deal, right? A few extra days, maybe a week, is the expected time. But science careers are built on repetition. You don’t just publish one paper. You publish many. And every small delay stacks on top of the next one.

Over time, those extra days turn into months. Sometimes, even years are spent waiting on reviewer comments, editor decisions, and approval emails that never seem to come.

For women in STEM, this slow, constant delay can shape an entire career. Fewer papers appear on a CV. Promotions take longer. Grants get harder to secure. And even though women are everywhere at the student and trainee level, far fewer make it to senior roles.

Not because they are less capable. But because the system keeps them waiting.

Not about quality, length, or writing skill

A common assumption is that longer or more complex papers take more time to review. The data do not support that explanation.

Female-authored life science articles are only slightly longer, and article length does not explain the review gap. The same goes for the number of authors. Women tend to collaborate marginally more, but controlling for team size does not erase the delay.

What about writing clarity? The study examined more than seven million abstracts using five standard readability tests. Abstracts written by female corresponding authors were actually a bit more readable on average. The differences were tiny, but they clearly do not justify longer review times.

In short, women are not waiting longer because their science is messier, harder to read, or more complicated.

The Problem is Global

The gender gap appeared in about 70 percent of journals analyzed and across most life science disciplines, from microbiology to biotechnology. Importantly, it did not depend on how well represented women were in a given field. Even in areas where women publish frequently, the delay persisted.

There were exceptions. In a handful of fields, including biophysics, genetics, molecular biology, and women’s health, papers led by women moved as fast or faster than those led by men. These bright spots show that long review times for women are not inevitable.

Geography also played a role. Authors based in low-income countries waited much longer for decisions overall, regardless of gender. Papers from these regions spent up to 44 percent more time under review than those from wealthier countries. However, within each country, women and men were affected equally. Gender bias and geographic disadvantage appear to stack rather than replace one another.

Women in STEM  Are Making Progress… Slowly

The study also traced authorship trends over more than a century. The good news is that representation has improved dramatically. Women made up just over 2 percent of life science authors in the early 1900s. Today, they account for nearly 39 percent.

Women are particularly visible as first authors, representing approximately 44 per cent of those positions in recent years. But only around one-third of corresponding authors are women, highlighting a persistent leadership gap in scientific research.

Why Everyone Should Care?

When we talk about peer review, we have to remember that it’s about science and not the gender of the person. Yet, the results show that the system is biased. The system favours a certain group of people even when the quality and content are comparable. 

The slow publication process means missing out on opportunities, especially for students and scientists who have just started their careers. And for science as a whole, it means delayed knowledge and lost potential.

In the study, there were multiple reasons behind this. Bias, caregiving responsibilities, workload differences, and seniority may all play a role. Currently, we can handle this issue by double blind peer review. This is the cure, but till we find a permanent solution, we can continue with this. 

With this research study, we can clearly understand that women in STEM are silently suffering. The data confirms it. 

And until the publishing system learns to move at the same pace for everyone, scientific progress itself will keep waiting too.