Mind the (submission) gap: EPSR gender data and female authors publishing perceptions

被引:21
作者
Closa, Carlos [1 ]
Moury, Catherine [2 ]
Novakova, Zuzana [3 ]
Qvortrup, Matt [4 ]
Ribeiro, Beatriz [2 ]
机构
[1] CSIC, Spanish Natl Res Council, Inst Polit & Bienes Publ IPP, Calle Albasanz 26-28, Madrid 28037, Spain
[2] Nova Univ, Dept Polit Studies, Ave Berna 26-C, P-1069061 Lisbon, Portugal
[3] Erasmus Univ, Int Inst Social Studies, Kortenaerkade 12, NL-2502 LT The Hague, Netherlands
[4] Coventry Univ, Ctr Trust Peace & Social Relat, Cheetah Rd, Coventry CV1 2TL, W Midlands, England
关键词
Gender gap in publications; Political science women authors; Female reviewers; PUBLICATION PATTERNS; EDITORIAL OUTCOMES; JOURNALS;
D O I
10.1057/s41304-020-00250-5
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
The publication pattern of EPSR confirms the findings of established scholarship on gender and publishing; women publish less than men (roughly, 30% to 70%). This gap reflects a previous submission gap; i.e., men submit even much more than women do. EPSR editorial process does not show signs of discrimination: single or leading female authors have significantly lower desk rejection rates than their male counterparts in similar configurations. Women though, are underrepresented as peer reviewers and EPSR has taken measures to redress this situation. Looking at women authors perceptions, findings (that cannot be considered representative), are consistent with existing scholarship. Women authors perceive themselves as more perfectionist and more risk adverse, they also perceive that they can dedicate less time to research, and they express mistrust in the blind review process. As a general conclusion, whilst reversing the gender gap requires structural action beyond and before the editorial process, journal editors must consider forms to secure more extensive women inclusion in publications.
引用
收藏
页码:428 / 442
页数:15
相关论文
共 28 条
[11]   Co-authorship and the output of academic economists [J].
Hollis, A .
LABOUR ECONOMICS, 2001, 8 (04) :503-530
[12]   The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? [J].
Holman, Luke ;
Stuart-Fox, Devi ;
Hauser, Cindy E. .
PLOS BIOLOGY, 2018, 16 (04)
[13]  
Holmes A., 2019, LSE IMPACT BLOG
[14]  
Howe-Walsh L., 2016, Advancing Women in Leadership, V36, P54, DOI DOI 10.21423/AWLJ-V36.A21
[15]   The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest [J].
Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia ;
Glynn, Carroll J. ;
Huge, Michael .
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2013, 35 (05) :603-625
[16]   Gender and Editorial Outcomes at the American Political Science Review [J].
Koenig, Thomas ;
Ropers, Guido .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2018, 51 (04) :849-853
[17]   Why Do Women Do the Lion's Share of Housework? A Decade of Research [J].
Lachance-Grzela, Mylene ;
Bouchard, Genevieve .
SEX ROLES, 2010, 63 (11-12) :767-780
[18]   Journals invite too few women to referee [J].
Lerback, Jory ;
Hanson, Brooks .
NATURE, 2017, 541 (7638) :455-457
[19]   What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching [J].
MacNell L. ;
Driscoll A. ;
Hunt A.N. .
Innovative Higher Education, 2015, 40 (4) :291-303
[20]  
Morley L., 2003, QUALITY POWER HIGHER