PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Peer ReviewViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mihaljević, H.
    ;
    Santamaría, L.
    Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority. © 2020 Helena Mihaljević and Lucía Santamaría.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Underrepresentation of women in computer systems research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Frachtenberg, E.
    ;
    Kaner, R.D.
    The gender gap in computer science (CS) research is a well-studied problem, with an estimated ratio of 15%–30% women researchers. However, far less is known about gender representation in specific fields within CS. Here, we investigate the gender gap in one large field, computer systems. To this end, we collected data from 72 leading peer-reviewed CS conferences, totalling 6,949 accepted papers and 19,829 unique authors (2,946 women, 16,307 men, the rest unknown). We combined these data with external demographic and bibliometric data to evaluate the ratio of women authors and the factors that might affect this ratio. Our main findings are that women represent only about 10% of systems researchers, and that this ratio is not associated with various conference factors such as size, prestige, double-blind reviewing, and inclusivity policies. Author research experience also does not significantly affect this ratio, although author country and work sector do. The 10% ratio of women authors is significantly lower than the 16% in the rest of CS. Our findings suggest that focusing on inclusivity policies alone cannot address this large gap. Increasing women’s participation in systems research will require addressing the systemic causes of their exclusion, which are even more pronounced in systems than in the rest of CS. © 2022 Frachtenberg, Kaner. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • 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.