PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Economics & BusinessViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Fresh Look at the Publication and Citation Gap Between Men and Women: Insights from Economics and Political Science
    (2025)
    Stockemer, Daniel
    ;
    Galassi, Gabriela
    ;
    Abou-el-kheir Engi
    In recent years, significant efforts have been made to attract more women into academia and to support their careers, with the goal of increasing their representation. Using novel data for economics and political science, collected through web-scraping the corresponding departments of the top 50 universities worldwide, we document three key findings: (i) female scholars, on average, publish less and receive fewer citations than their male counterparts; (ii) this gap is smaller at junior ranks in both disciplines; and (iii) the gap decreases in departments with a higher proportion of female scholars, particularly in political science, where female faculty representation is generally higher compared to economics. Gaps do not differ significantly by field in economics, where a substantial proportion of women are concentrated in microeconomic subfields. Overall, our results underscore a persistent publication and citation gap between men and women in both disciplines, primarily driven by full professors, while suggesting that this gap diminishes in departments with greater sex balance among faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    GENDER DIVERSITY IN RESEARCH TEAMS AND CITATION IMPACT IN ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Maddi, A.
    ;
    Gingras, Y.
    The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) contribute to a better understanding of the place of women in Economics and Management disciplines by characterizing the difference in levels of scientific collaboration between men and women at the specialties’ level; and (2) investigate the relationship between gender diversity and citation impact in Economics and Management. Our data, extracted from the Web of Science database, cover global production as indexed in 302 journals in Economics and 370 journals in Management, with, respectively, 153,667 and 163,567 articles published between 2008 and 2018. Results show that collaborative practices between men and women are quite different in Economics and Management. We also find that there is a modest positive and significant effect of gender diversity on the citation impact of publications. Mixed-gender publications (coauthored by men and women) receive more citations than nonmixed papers (written by same-gender author teams) or single-author publications. The regression analysis also indicates that there is, for Economics, a small negative effect on citations received if the corresponding author is a woman. Finally, the country (affiliation) of the corresponding author affects the citations received in the two disciplines. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Innovative Ideas and Gender Inequality
    (2021)
    Koffi, Marlène
    This paper analyzes the recognition of women’s innovative ideas. Bibliometric data from research in economics are used to investigate gender biases in citation patterns. Based on deep learning and machine learning techniques, one can (1) establish the similarities between papers (2) build a link between articles by identifying the papers citing, cited and that should be cited. This study finds that, on average, omitted papers are 15%-20% more likely to be female-authored than male-authored. This omission bias is more prevalent when there are only males in the citing paper. Overall, to have the same level of citation as papers written by males, papers written by females need to be 20 percentiles upper in the distribution of the degree of innovativeness of the paper.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and equality at top economics journals
    (2020)
    Hengel, Erin
    ;
    Moon, Eunyoung
    Using (asinh) citations as a proxy for quality, we show that female-authored papers published in top economics journals are, on average, higher quality than male-authored papers. Furthermore, men and women publish higher quality papers when they co-author with women instead of men—for example, the same senior male economist receives about 60 log points more citations when he co-authors with a junior woman as opposed to a junior man. Finally, variance in quality is consistently higher among published male-authored papers. Under strong—but we believe reasonable—distributional assumptions, we show that these findings imply top economics journals hold female-authored papers to higher standards and, as a result, do not publish the highest quality research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review* Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Hengel, Erin
    Female authors are underrepresented in top economics journals. In this paper, I investigate whether higher writing standards contribute to the problem. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap widens during peer review; (iii) women improve their writing as they publish more papers (but men do not); (iv) female-authored papers take longer under review. Using a subjective expected utility framework, I argue that higher writing standards for women are consistent with these stylised facts. A counterfactual analysis suggests senior female economists may, as a result, write at least five percent more clearly than they otherwise would. As a final exercise, I show tentative evidence that women adapt to biased treatment in ways that may disguise it as voluntary choice.
  • 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 differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    Initiatives addressing the lack of women in many academic fields, and the general lack of senior women, need to be informed about the causes of any gender differences that may affect career progression, including citation impact. Previous research about gender differences in journal article citation impact has found the direction of any difference to vary by country and field, but has usually avoided discussions of the magnitude and wider significance of any differences and has not been systematic in terms of fields and/or time. This study investigates differences in citation impact between male and female first-authored research for 27 broad fields and six large English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) from 1996 to 2014. The results show an overall female first author citation advantage, although in most broad fields it is reversed in all countries for some years. International differences include Medicine having a female first author citation advantage for all years in Australia, but a male citation advantage for most years in Canada. There was no general trend for the gender difference to increase or decrease over time. The average effect size is small, however, and unlikely to have a substantial influence on overall gender differences in researcher careers. © 2020 Mike Thelwall. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Collaboration Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ductor, Lorenzo
    ;
    Goyal, Sanjeev
    ;
    Prummer, Anja
    We connect gender disparities in research output and collaboration patterns in economics. We rst document large gender gaps in research output. These output di erences are closely related to di erences in the co-authorship networks of men and women: women have fewer collaborators, collaborate more often with the same co-authors, and a higher fraction of their co-authors collaborate with each other. Taking into account co-authorship networks reduces the gender output gap by 21%. We show that gender output gap persists and the gender di erences in collaboration networks are stable, despite the signi cant increase in the fraction of women in economics. This suggests that gender homophily plays a minor role in shaping collaboration.
  • 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.