>> a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
I don't see that as being self-evident at all, In fact I can't even see what part of the above could be considered sexist or even controversial if you analyse what was actually said.
There seems to be 3 potential points of issue:
* The comment that as the researchers didnt include a male would mean their paper risks being gender-biassed seems perfectly reasonable, especially as the papaer itself is about gender balance.
* The statment that on average, most men can probably run a mile faster than most women. Check any sports timings. This seems to be beyond doubt to any but the most unreasonable person.
* That men's papers are on average higher quality than women's. Since I have no personal experience of reveiewing papers submitted for publishing I have no valid comment either way, however lets do some logical ananlysis:
If we assume that the stated position of their own paper is in fact correct; that men tend to publish more papers, and in more prestigious academic journals, than women. It therefore necessarily follows that men actually must have more experience on what it takes to get their papers past reviewers (i.e. to impress them) than women.
There are way too many "peecee" people (and apparently you may be one of them) that see any acknowlegdement or even mention of gender differneces (especially the ones where women don't do as well as men) as automatic cause to yell "sexist". This is patently ridiculous given the existence of physiological and mental gender differences is undeniable. Shouting "sexist" at every mention of these really does not do anyone any favours, least of all, the women that are fighting to attain actual equality.