Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology?

Scientometrics

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 1931-1952

  König, Cornelius J ^a   Fell, Clemens B ^a   Kellnhofer, Linus ^a,c   Schui, Gabriel ^b  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Leibniz Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID   (Germany)

^c ONE Agency   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Gender differences; Impact; Psychology; Research productivity; Scientific productivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947127428     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1646-y     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Adair, J. G., & Huynh, C.-L. (2012). Internationalization of psychological research: Publications and collaborations of the United States and other leading countries. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation,1, 252–267. doi:10.1037/a0030395.
2. Adams, A. B., & Simonson, D. (2004). Publications, citations, and impact factors of leading investigators in critical care medicine. Respiratory Care,49, 276–281.
3. Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014a). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology,7, 284–303. doi:10.1111/iops.12151.
4. Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014b). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education,13, 623–639. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0121.
5. American Psychological Association. (2009a). The PsycINFO content classification code system. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/training/class-codes.pdf
6. American Psychological Association. (2009b). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/training/class-codes.pdf
7. American Psychological Association. (2011). Practice guidelines for LGB clients: Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx.
8. American Psychological Association. (2012). Record structure for PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS and PsycCRITIQUES. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/training/record-structure.pdf
9. American Psychological Association. (2014). Quick reference guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/training/ebsco.pdf
10. American Psychological Association. (2015). PsycINFO(R): A world-class resource for behavioral and social science research. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/psycinfo-printable-fact-sheet.pdf
11. Anderson, M. H. (2006). How can we know what we think until we see what we said? A citation and citation context analysis of Karl Weick’s the social psychology of organizing. Organization Studies,27, 1675–1692. doi:10.1177/0170840606068346.
12. Aquino, J. (2014). descr: Descriptive statistics (Version 1.0.4). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=descr.
13. Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Rousseau, R. (2009). Influence of individual researchers’ visibility on institutional impact: An example of Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices. Scientometrics,79, 507–516. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2025-0.
14. Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics,95, 15–23. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0816-4.
15. Bauer, H. P. W., Schui, G., von Eye, A., & Krampen, G. (2013). How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries. Scientometrics,94, 523–539. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0760-3.
16. Borrego, Á., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Ollé, C. (2010). Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics,83, 93–101. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0025-y.
17. Bowling, N. A., & Burns, G. N. (2010). Scholarly productivity of academic SIOP members: What is typical and what is outstanding. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,47(4), 11–18.
18. Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T. A., & McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review of Sociology,34, 319–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134719.
19. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108, 3157–3162. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
20. Champely, S. (2015). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (Version 1.1-2). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr.
21. Cikara, M., Rudman, L., & Fiske, S. (2012). Dearth by a thousand cuts? Accounting for gender differences in top-ranked publication rates in social psychology. Journal of Social Issues,68, 263–285. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01748.x.
22. Condon, M., & Wichowsky, A. (2015). Same blueprint, different bricks: Reexamining the sources of the gender gap in political ideology. Politics, Groups, and Identities,3, 4–20. doi:10.1080/21565503.2014.992793.
23. D’Amico, R., Vermigli, P., & Canetto, S. S. (2011). Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: The case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,4, 175–184. doi:10.1037/a0022570.
24. Del Re, A. C. (2013). compute.es: Compute effect sizes (Version 0.2-2). http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es.
25. Diodato, V. P. (1994/2012). Dictionary of bibliometrics. New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation & European Commission. (2004). Gender and excellence in the making. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/gender-and-excellence-in-the-making-pbKINA21222/
27. Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,138, 947–981. doi:10.1037/a0027930.
28. European Commission. (2014). Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=gender. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
29. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
30. García-Pérez, M. A. (2010). Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in Psychology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61, 2070–2085. doi:10.1002/asi.21372.
31. Garg, K. C., & Kumar, S. (2014). Scientometric profile of Indian scientific output in life sciences with a focus on the contributions of women scientists. Scientometrics,98, 1771–1783. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1107-4.
32. Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P. O., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2008). Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods. Scientometrics,77, 147–176. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1934-2.
33. Guyer, L., & Fidell, L. (1973). Publications of men and women psychologists: Do women publish less? American Psychologist,28, 157–160. doi:10.1037/h0034240.
34. Henderson, M. T., Fijalkowski, N., Wang, S. K., Maltenfort, M., Zheng, L. L., Ratliff, J., et al. (2014). Gender differences in compensation in academic medicine: The results from four neurological specialties within the University of California Healthcare System. Scientometrics,100, 297–306. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1266-y.
35. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology,65, 373–398. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057.
36. Javitz, H., Grimes, T., Hill, D., Rapoport, A., Bell, R., Fecso, R., et al. (2010). US academic scientific publishing. Working paper No. SRS 11-201. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srs11201/pdf/srs11201.pdf
37. Joy, S. (2006). What should I be doing, and where are they doing it? Scholarly productivity of academic psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science,1, 346–364. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00020.x.
38. Judge, T. A., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Bretz, R. D. (2004). A longitudinal model of sponsorship and career success: A study of industrial-organizational psychologists. Personnel Psychology,57, 271–303. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02492.x.
39. König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (2005). Vom Ansehen der Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie: Ein Kommentar zu von Rosenstiel (2004) [On the reputation of work and organizational psychology: A comment on von Rosenstiel (2004)]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie,49, 102–104. doi:10.1026/0932-4089.49.2.102.
40. Landers, R. N. (2009). A quantitative examination of trends in I–O psychology 2001–2005. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,46(4), 15–23.
41. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature,504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a.
42. Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics,87, 483–498. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0369-y.
43. Lee, D. N. (2012). Feministing Friday: On marriage & name changing [blog]. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/feministing-friday-on-marriage-amp-name-changing/
44. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces,71, 159–178. doi:10.2307/2579971.
45. Malouff, J., Schutte, N., & Priest, J. (2010). Publication rates of Australian academic psychologists. Australian Psychologist,45, 78–83. doi:10.1080/00050060903078536.
46. Mauleón, E., & Bordons, M. (2006). Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics,66, 199–218. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0014-3.
47. McElrath, K. (1992). Gender, career disruption, and academic rewards. Journal of Higher Education,63, 269–281. doi:10.2307/1982015.
48. Milojević, S. (2013). Accuracy of simple, initials-based methods for author name disambiguation. Journal of Informetrics,7, 767–773. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.006.
49. Moed, H. F. (2002). The impact-factors debate: The ISI’s uses and limits. Nature,415, 731–732. doi:10.1038/415731a.
50. Mussida, C., & Picchio, M. (2014). The gender wage gap by education in Italy. Journal of Economic Inequality,12, 117–147. doi:10.1007/s10888-013-9242-y.
51. Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., Lindner, N. M., Kesebir, S., Hawkins, C. B., Hahn, C., et al. (2010). Cumulative and career-stage citation impact of social-personality psychology programs and their members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,36, 1283–1300. doi:10.1177/0146167210378111.
52. Opthof, T. (1997). Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research,33, 1–7. doi:10.1016/s0008-6363(96)00215-5.
53. Paul-Hus, A., Bouvier, R. L., Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., Pislyakov, V., & Larivière, V. (2015). Forty years of gender disparities in Russian science: A historical bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,102, 1541–1553. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1386-4.
54. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management,34, 641–720. doi:10.1177/0149206308319533.
55. Powell, A., Hassan, T. M., Dainty, A. R. J., & Carter, C. (2009). Exploring gender differences in construction research: A European perspective. Construction Management and Economics,27, 803–807. doi:10.1080/01446190903179736.
56. Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior,21, 259–287. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(82)90036-7.
57. Priem, J. (2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature,495, 437–440. doi:10.1038/495437a.
58. Prozesky, H. (2008). A career-history analysis of gender differences in publication productivity among South African academics. Science Studies,21(2), 47–67.
59. Prozesky, H., & Boshoff, N. (2012). Bibliometrics as a tool for measuring gender-specific research performance: An example from South African invasion ecology. Scientometrics,90, 383–406. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0478-7.
60. Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics,55, 27–58. doi:10.1023/a:1016046819457.
61. Puuska, H.-M. (2010). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types: Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics,82, 419–437. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7.
62. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version x64 3.1.3). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
63. Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 1.5.1). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
64. Rhoads, S. E., & Rhoads, C. H. (2012). Gender roles and infant/toddler care: Male and female professors on the tenure track. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology,6, 13–31. doi:10.1037/h0099227.
65. Roediger, H. L., III. (2013). Journal impact factors: How much should we care? Observer, 26(7). http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/september-2013/journal-impact-factors.html
66. Rupp, D. E., & Beal, D. (2007). Checking in with the scientist-practitioner model: How are we doing? The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,45(1), 35–40.
67. Sarkar, D. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from http://lmdvr.r-forge.r-project.org.
68. Schui, G., & Krampen, G. (2010). Thirty years of International Journal of Behavioral Development: Scope, internationality, and impact since its inception. International Journal of Behavioral Development,34, 289–291. doi:10.1177/0165025409344828.
69. SIOP. (2015a). What are SIOP and I–O Psychologists? http://www.siop.org/joinsiop.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2015.
70. SIOP. (2015b). What are the criteria for SIOP membership? http://www.siop.org/joinsiop.aspx. Accessed 26 Feb 2015.
71. Sotudeh, H., & Khoshian, N. (2014). Gender differences in science: The case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007. Scientometrics,98, 457–472. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1031-7.
72. Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education,45, 891–920. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-5953-z.
73. Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63, 1820–1833. doi:10.1002/asi.22695.
74. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin,135, 859–884. doi:10.1037/a0017364.
75. Tang, L., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: Name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics,84, 763–784. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0196-6.
76. Temple Lang, D. (2013a). RCurl: General network (HTTP/FTP/…) client interface for R (Version 1.95-4.5). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RCurl.
77. Temple Lang, D. (2013b). XML: Tools for parsing and generating XML within R and S-Plus (Version 3.98-1.1). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=XML.
78. Thomson Reuters. (2013a). Journal citation reports(R) science edition 2012. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR
79. Thomson Reuters. (2013b). Journal citation reports(R) Social science edition 2012. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR
80. Tubr, T., Bly, P. R., Edwards, B. D., Pritchard, R. D., & Simoneaux, S. (2001). Building a better literature review: Reference and information sources for I–O psychology. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist,38(4), 55–59.
81. Üsdiken, B., & Wasti, S. A. (2009). Preaching, teaching and researching at the periphery: Academic management literature in Turkey, 1970–1999. Organization Studies,30, 1063–1082. doi:10.1177/0170840609337952.
82. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics,93, 857–868. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.
83. Van Hoye, G., Lievens, F., De Soete, B., Libbrecht, N., Schollaert, E., & Baligant, D. (2014). The image of psychology programs: The value of the instrumental–symbolic framework. Journal of Psychology,148, 457–475. doi:10.1080/00223980.2013.808602.
84. Venkatraman, V. (2010). Conventions of scientific authorship. Science Career Magazine. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1000039
85. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. CoRR, abs/1501.04431. http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04431
86. Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of “Student”s’ problem when several different population varlances are involved. Biometrika,34, 28–35. doi:10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28.
87. White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,52, 87–108. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<:AID-ASI1542>3.0.CO;2-T.
88. Wickham, H. (2007). Reshaping data with the reshape package. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12). www.jstatsoft.org/v21/i12/paper.
89. Wickham, H. (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(1). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i01/paper.
90. Wickham, H. (2012). stringr: Make it easier to work with strings (Version 0.6.2). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr.
91. Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist,70, 10–20. doi:10.1037/a0038208.
92. Zhang, W., Gkritza, K., Keren, N., & Nambisan, S. (2011). Age and gender differences in conviction and crash occurrence subsequent to being directed to Iowa’s driver improvement program. Journal of Safety Research,42, 359–365. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2011.07.006.