1/7 An experience of #inequality in #academia. I co-authored a paper with a male colleague, and the manuscript has now been thorough single-blind #peerreview, meaning that they know who we are, but we don't know who they are. One of the reviews we received was quite interesting.

2/7. The #reviewer has considered the paper as having two separate parts, which they call "Moilanen's article" and "male author's article". They seem to think that the paper consists of an insignificant introduction to the subject authored by me,

3/7 and a brilliant discussion written by the male author. Throughout the review, they point out how the sections presumably written by me and the male colleague do not fit together at all. "My part" is full of factual errors, it is poorly written and structured, and needs

4/7 rewriting and extensive language check by a native speaker. The section they call the "male author's part" (presumably the discussion), is excellent, brings a deep insight on the topic, and answers most of the issues the reviewer considers problematic in "my part".

5/7 Again, they remark how poorly this splendid section fits together with "my part". They also suggest that "the authors - better the male author - adds a brief discussion about subject x". In reality, the paper was written by both of us.

6/7. Some of the things I have been criticized for have been written by my colleague and vice versa. The paper obviously needs some work, but what bothers me the most here is

7/7 the automatic assumption that all the poorly written and structured sections MUST have been written by me, and all the real brainwork has been done by the male author. #genderequity #genderbias