PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2019Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Economics & Business

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 21
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and citation impact in management research Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Nielsen, M.W.
    This study investigates the extent to which a gender gap exists in the citation rates of management researchers. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 26,783 publications and 65,436 authorships, we illuminate possible differences in women's and men's average citation impact per paper, adjusting for covariation attributable to geographical setting, institutional reputation, self-citations, collaborative patterns and journal prestige. We find a marginal difference in citation impact in favor of women management scholars. Women are also slightly more likely than men to author articles among the top-10% most cited in their field. Yet given the sensitivity of our results to uncertainties in the data, these variations should not be overgeneralized. In the large picture, differences in citation rates appear to be a negligible factor in the reproduction of gender inequalities in management research. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    Man-woman collaboration practices and scientific visibility: How gender affect scientific impact in economics and management
    (2019)
    Maddi, A.
    ;
    Larivière, V.
    ;
    Gingras, Y.
    The question of the place of women in the various sciences is now widely discussed and studied. The field of economics and management is no exception and also requires a reflexive analysis of its practices. This study contributes to a better understanding of the place of women in these disciplines by characterizing the difference in levels of scientific collaboration between men and women (as measured by joint publications) in economics and management. First, the results show for the first time on an empirical basis that the practices of collaboration between men and women are quite different in management sciences compared to discipline of economics. Second, a regression analysis shows that there is a negative and statistically significant relationship between the Normalized Citation Score and the proportion of women per article in economics, which is not the case in management sciences. Results also show that international collaboration and the choice of journals significantly affect normalized citation scores. © 2019 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019 - Proceedings. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Rare Case of Gender Parity in Academia Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lynn, F.B.
    ;
    Noonan, M.C.
    ;
    Sauder, M.
    ;
    Andersson, M.A.
    In academia, women trail men in nearly every major professional reward, such as earnings, publications, and funding. Bibliometric studies, however, suggest that citations are unique with regard to gender inequality: female penalties have been reported, but gender parity or even female premiums are routinely documented as well. Two questions follow from this puzzle. First, does gender matter for citations in sociology and neighboring social science disciplines? No theoretically informed study of gender and citations exists for the social science core. We begin to fill this gap by analyzing roughly 10,000 publications in economics, political science, and sociology. In contrast to many big data studies, we estimate the effect of author gender on citations alongside other author-, article-, journal-, and (sub)field-level predictors. Our results strongly suggest that when male and female authors publish articles that are comparably positioned to receive citations, their publications do in fact accrue citations at the same rate. This finding raises a second question: Why would gender matter "everywhere but here"? We hypothesize that the answer is related to the mechanisms (e.g., self-selection, biased assessments of commitment) that are activated in the context of some professional rewards but not citations. We discuss why a null gender finding should not be discarded as an anomaly but rather approached as an analytical opportunity. © 2019 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Economics: Stalled Progress
    (Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2018)
    Lundberg, Shelly
    ;
    Stearns, Jenna
    In this paper, we first document trends in the gender composition of academic economists over the past 25 years, the extent to which these trends encompass the most elite departments, and how women's representation across fields of study within economics has changed. We then review the recent literature on other dimensions of women's relative position in the discipline, including research productivity and income, and assess evidence on the barriers that female economists face in publishing, promotion, and tenure. While underlying gender differences can directly affect the relative productivity of men and women, due to either differential constraints or preferences, productivity gaps do not fully explain the gender disparity in promotion rates in economics. Furthermore, the progress of women has stalled relative to that in other disciplines in the past two decades. We propose that differential assessment of men and women is one important factor in explaining this stalled progress, reflected in gendered institutional policies and apparent implicit bias in promotion and editorial review processes.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Citations In Economics: Measurement, Uses, and Impacts Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Hamermesh, Daniel S.
    I describe and compare sources of data on citations in economics and the statistics derived from them. Constructing data sets of the post-publication citation histories of articles published in the “top five” journals in the 1970s and 2000s, I examine distributions and life cycles of citations, compare citation histories of articles in different subspecialties in economics, and present evidence on the history and heterogeneity of those journals' impacts and the marginal citation productivity of additional coauthors. I use a new data set of the lifetime citation histories of over 1,000 economists from thirty universities to rank economics departments by various measures and demonstrate the importance of intra- and interdepartmental heterogeneity in productivity. Throughout, the discussion summarizes earlier work, including the impacts of citations on salaries and nonmonetary rewards, and how citations reflect judgments about research quality in economics and the importance of economic ideas. (JEL A14, I23)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric studies on gender disparities in science
    (2019)
    Halevi, G.
    Understanding gender related disparities in science is an essential step in tackling these issues. Through the years, bibliometric studies have designed several methodologies to analyze scholarly output and demonstrate that there are significant gaps between men and women in the scientific arena. However, gender identification in itself is an enormous challenge, since bibliographic data does not reveal it. These bibliometric studies not only focused on publication output and impact, but also on cross-referencing output, promotions and tenure data, and other related curriculum vitae (CV) information. This chapter discusses the challenges of tracking gender disparities in science through bibliometrics and reviews the various approaches taken by bibliometricians to identify gender and analyze the bibliographic data in order to point to gender disparities in science. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes? Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Wullum Nielsen, M.
    ;
    Börjeson, L.
    This study examines the relationship between gender diversity and research outcomes. Existing research on the topic primarily focuses on how team gender diversity influences scholarly productivity in terms of citations and publication rates. Far less attention has been devoted to the question of how the intellectual contents of research disciplines change as they become more gender diverse. Drawing on a global sample of more than 25,000 management papers, we use natural language processing techniques, correspondence analysis and regression models to illuminate impact-, content- and status-related dimensions of gender diversity in management research. In regression models adjusting for geographical setting, institutional prestige and collaboration patterns, we find no discernable effects of team gender diversity on per-paper scientific impact. In contrast, our analyses converge to yield a broadly consistent pattern of gender-related variations in research focus: women are well-represented in social- and human-centered areas of management, while men comprise the vast majority in areas addressing more technical and operational aspects. Our findings corroborate recent sociological research suggesting that cultural norms and expectations are channeling women and men towards different areas of work and study. We argue that the broadened repertoire of perspectives, values and questions resulting from gender diversity may render management research more responsive to the full gamut of societal needs and expectations. © 2019
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Thelwall, M.
    There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    An econometric investigation of the productivity gender gap in Mexican research, and a simulation study of the effects on scientific performance of policy scenarios to promote gender equality
    (United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT), 2016)
    Rivera Leon, Llorena
    ;
    Mairesse, Jacques
    ;
    Cowan, Robin
    This paper provides evidence on the existence and determinants of the publication productivity gender gap in Mexico at the individual level and on its consequences on the Mexican scientific system and productivity at disciplinary and aggregate levels. The paper specifies and performs a panel data econometric analysis based on a sample of Mexican researchers who are members of the National System of Researchers (SNI) of Mexico in the period 2002-2013. It corrects for a selectivity bias: the existence of periods with no (or low quality) publication, and endogeneity bias: the promotion to higher academic ranks. We define and implement counterfactual simulations to both effects, assess the magnitude of macro-impacts of existing gender gaps and illustrate the potential effects of a range of policy scenarios. The results show no significant gender gaps for an average SNI researcher. Moreover, when correcting for the endogeneity and selectivity biases, we find that the average female researcher in public universities is around 8% more productive than her male peers, with most of the observed productivity being explained by gender differentials in the propensity to have periods of no (or low) quality publication. We find that barriers to promotion to higher academic ranks are highest among females in public research centres. Our macro scenarios on promotion practices, selectivity, collaboration and age show that eliminating gender gaps would increase aggregate productivity by an average of 7% for university females and 9% for females in research centres.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D’Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.