PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.SpainSubject: search.filters.subject.Economics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020) Open PDF 
    (Banco de España, 2020)
    Hospido, Laura
    ;
    Sanz, Carlos
    We study gender differences in the evaluation of submissions to economics conferences. Using data from the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (2015-2017), the Annual Meeting of the Spanish Economic Association (2012-2017), and the Spring Meeting of Young Economists (2017), we find that all-female-authored papers are 3.3 p.p. (6.8%) less likely to be accepted than all-male-authored papers. This gap is present after controlling for number of authors of the paper; referee fixed effects; field; cites of the paper; authors’ previous publication record, affiliations, and experience; and connections between the authors of a given paper and the referees that evaluate it. We provide evidence suggesting that the gap is driven by stereotypes against female authors: it is entirely driven by male referees, only exists for lesser-known authors, and seems larger in more masculine fields, especially in finance.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Predicting early career productivity of PhD economists: Does advisor-match matter? Open PDF 
    (2020)
    García-Suaza, Andrés
    ;
    Otero, Jesús
    ;
    Winkelmann, Rainer
    We assess the role played by department rank and advisor-match on the early stage productivity of recent PhDs in economics using a tailor-made data set based on RePEc. After allowing for the potential influence of other factors, including gender and field of specialisation, we find as expected that both advisory quality and rank of the graduation institution are positively related to the academic productivity of graduates. However, in top institutions, students working with the most productive academics do not outperform others unless they co-author with their advisor. For students in non-top institutions, being advised by the best academics is always associated with a higher research output. Possible explanations for this difference are pointed out, including selection and differences in advising styles.
  • 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.