Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

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.
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.
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.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results