PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Card, DavidDiscipline: search.filters.discipline.Economics & Business

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Gaps at the Academies Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Card, David
    ;
    DellaVigna, Stefano
    ;
    Funk, Patricia
    ;
    Iriberri, Nagore
    Historically, a large majority of the newly elected members of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS) were men. Within the past two decades, however, that situation has changed, and in the last 3 years women made up about 40 percent of the new members in both academies. We build lists of active scholars from publications in the top journals in three fields – Psychology, Mathematics and Economics – and develop a series of models to compare changes in the probability of selection of women as members of the NAS and AAAS from the 1960s to today, controlling for publications and citations. In the early years of our sample, women were less likely to be selected as members than men with similar records. By the 1990s, the selection process at both academies was approximately gender-neutral, conditional on publications and citations. In the past 20 years, however, a positive preference for female members has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are 3-15 times more likely to be selected as members of the AAAS and NAS than men with similar publication and citation records.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Card, David
    ;
    DellaVigna, Stefano
    We study the evolving gender gap in peer recognition in Economics. We begin by analyzing the selection of Fellows of the Econometric Society, one of the oldest and most prestigious international societies in the field. Using publicly available information on Fellows elected each year from 1933 onward, merged with a new data set of over 40,000 “actively publishing” economists, we estimate the effect of gender on selection as a fellow over the past seven decades. Our baseline models include controls for cumulative publications in each of the top 5 journals, citations to these papers, and publications in a broad set of general interest and field journals. We then propose to use confidential data obtained from the Econometric Society on nominations and vote shares in the last 13 years (2006-2019) to decompose the gender gap in selection as a fellow into components attributable to differences in the probability of being nominated and in the probability of being successfully elected if nominated. We provide a broader perspective on our findings for the Econometric Society by conducting a parallel analysis of gender gaps in selection as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Economic Association, as well as being awarded a Sloan Foundation Fellowship. We conclude by analyzing several of the channels that may mediate the gender gap in peer recognition, including visibility, networking, and credit for coauthored work.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?* Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Card, David
    ;
    DellaVigna, Stefano
    ;
    Funk, Patricia
    ;
    Iriberri, Nagore
    We study the role of gender in the evaluation of economic research using submissions to four leading journals. We find that referee gender has no effect on the relative assessment of female- versus male-authored papers, suggesting that any differential biases of male referees are negligible. To determine whether referees as a whole impose different standards for female authors, we compare citations for female- and male-authored papers, holding constant referee evaluations and other characteristics. We find that female-authored papers receive about 25% more citations than observably similar male-authored papers. Editors largely follow the referees, resulting in a 1.7 percentage point lower probability of a revise and resubmit verdict for papers with female authors relative to a citation-maximizing benchmark. In their desk rejection decisions, editors treat female authors more favorably, though they still impose a higher bar than would be implied by citation maximization. We find no differences in the informativeness of female versus male referees or in the weight that editors place on the recommendations of female versus male referees. We also find no differences in editorial delays for female- versus male-authored papers.