PROGETTO/PROJECT

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1585

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender GapViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Pipeline vs. Choice: The Global Gender Gap in STEM Applications
    (2025-08)
    Ahimbisibwe, Isaac
    ;
    Altjmed Adam
    ;
    Artemov Gregory
    ;
    Barrios-Fernandez Andres
    ;
    Bizopoulou, Aspasia
    Women account for only 35% of global STEM graduates, a share that has remained unchanged for a decade. We use administrative microdata from centralized university admissions in ten systems to deliver the first cross-national decomposition of the STEM gender gap into a pipeline gap (academic preparedness) and a choice gap (first-choice field conditional on eligibility). In deferred-acceptance platforms where eligibility is score-based, we isolate preferences from access. The pipeline gap varies widely, from -19 to +31 percentage points across education systems. By contrast, the choice gap is remarkably stable: high-scoring women are 25 percentage points less likely than men to rank STEM first.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Citation Gender Gaps in Top Economics Journals
    (2025-06)
    J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz
    ;
    Ganuza Juan-jose
    ;
    García, Manu
    This paper investigates the existence and drivers of gender citation gaps in the five leading journals in economics. Using a comprehensive dataset of 7,214 articles published between 1999 and 2023, we examine whether female-authored papers are cited more frequently than male-authored ones, and whether this pattern persists after controlling for differences in research topics. We apply Structural Topic Modeling (STM) to abstracts to estimate latent research themes and complement this approach with field classifications based on JEL codes. Our results show that female-authored papers initially display a citation premium—receiving up to 15 log points more citations—but this advantage becomes statistically insignificant once we control for research field composition using either STM topics or JEL codes. These findings suggest that horizontal gender differences in thematic specialization, rather than bias in citation behavior, account for most of the observed citation gap. Our analysis highlights the importance of accounting for field heterogeneity when assessing academic recognition and contributes to ongoing discussions about fairness and diversity in economics publishing.