Notes

^* Numbers of accepted papers small, so more prone to noise

^* Year-on-year increase in co-authorship

^* Co-authored papers continue to have greater chance of publication

Notes

^* Data provided by authors

^* Number of papers accepted is small, so more prone to noise

^* Percentage of female authors submitting remains broadly stable

^* Biggest changes are in percentage of male single-authored papers and all-male co-authored papers

^* Increase in submissions of co-authored papers mostly reflected in increase in all-male co-author teams

Notes

^* Data provided by authors

^* Number of papers accepted is small, so more prone to noise

^* Only second year of data collection so too early to see trends

^* Controlling for desk rejects offers a clearer picture of the situation, since a large number of desk rejects are from non-fluent speakers targeting an entirely inappropriate journal

^* Non-fluent speakers have a better chance of being published once desk rejects are excluded

Notes

^* ‘Country’ here refers only to the location of the corresponding author’s institution

^* Number of papers accepted is small, so more prone to noise

^* Only second year of data collection, so too early to draw firm conclusions

^* Controlling for desk rejects offers a clearer picture of the situation, since a large number of desk rejects are from non-fluent speakers targeting an entirely inappropriate journal

^* Insofar as conclusions can be drawn from just two years’ worth of data collection, non-fluent speakers have a better chance of being published once desk rejects are excluded