Author׳s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment

European Economic Review

Volumn 90, Issue , 2016, Pages 326-335

  Krawczyk, Michał ^a   Smyk, Magdalena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

Gender equality; Laboratory experiment; Women in science

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; GENDER; MALE;

EID: 84962037288     PISSN: 00142921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.02.017     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Albrecht, K., Von Essen, E., Parys, J., Szech, N., Updating, self-confidence, and discrimination. Eur. Econ. Rev. 60 (2013), 144–169.
2. Arrow, K., et al., 1973. The theory of discrimination. In: Discrimination in Labor Markets, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 3–33.
3. Barman, C.R., How do students really view science and scientists?. Sci. Child. 34:1 (1996), 30–33.
4. ⁎. Econ. J. 118:530 (2008), 961–982.
5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J. Informetr. 1:3 (2007), 226–238.
6. Borsuk, R.M., Aarssen, L.W., Budden, A.E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., Lortie, C.J., To name or not to name: the effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience 59:11 (2009), 985–989.
7. Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Lortie, C.J., Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:1 (2008), 4–6.
8. Canizares, C.R., 2009. Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. In: Women in Astronomy Proceedings, p. 35.
9. Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M., Understanding current causes of women׳s underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:8 (2011), 3157–3162.
10. Chambers, D.W., Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test. Sci. Educ. 67:2 (1983), 255–265.
11. Davis, D.D., Experimental Economics. 1993, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
12. Eagly, A.H., Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. 1987, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, New Jersey.
13. Eccles, J.S., Blumenfeld, P., 1985. Classroom experiences and student gender: are there differences and do they matter. In: Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction, pp. 79–114.
14. Engqvist, L., Frommen, J.G., Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Anim. Behav., 2008, 76.
15. Fort, D.C., Varney, H.L., How students see scientists: mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Sci. Child. 26:8 (1989), 8–13.
16. Goldberg, P., Are women prejudiced against women?. Society 5:5 (1968), 28–30.
17. Greiner, B., 2004. The Online Recruitment System Orsee 2.0—A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics. University of Cologne. Working Paper Series in Economics 10(23), pp. 63–104.
18. Haveman, H.A., Beresford, L.S., If you׳re so smart, why aren׳t you the boss? Explaining the persistent vertical gender gap in management. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 639:1 (2012), 114–130.
19. Klumpp, T., Su, X., Second-order statistical discrimination. J. Public Econ. 97 (2013), 108–116.
20. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C.J., Huge, M., The Matilda Effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication 35:5 (2013), 603–625, 10.1177/1075547012472684.
21. Lincoln, A.E., Pincus, S., Koster, J.B., Leboy, P.S., The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:2 (2012), 307–320.
22. Link, A.M., Us and non-us submissions. J. Am. Med. 280:3 (1998), 246–247.
23. Liu, M., Hu, W., Jiannong, S., Adey, P., Gender stereotyping and affective attitudes towards science in Chinese secondary school students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32:3 (2010), 379–395.
24. Losh, S.C., Stereotypes about scientists over time among us adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Underst. Sci. 19:3 (2010), 372–382.
25. Maoldomhnaigh, M.O., Hunt, A., Some factors affecting the image of the scientist drawn by older primary school pupils. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 6:2 (1988), 159–166.
26. Mead, M., Metraux, R., Image of the scientist among high-school students a pilot study. Science 126:3270 (1957), 384–390 PMID: 17774477.
27. Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., Handelsman, J., Science faculty׳s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109:41 (2012), 16474–16479.
28. Niemistö, C., Hearn, J., Jyrkinen, M., Generation/age, ageism and organisational well-being. Int. J. Work Innov., 4, 2015.
29. Nosek, B., Smyth, F., Lindner Sriram, N., Devos, T., Ayala, A., Bar-Anan, Y., Bergh, R., Cai, H., Gonsalkorale, K., et al. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106:26 (2009), 10593–10597.
30. Ortmann, A., Hertwig, R., The costs of deception: evidence from psychology. Exp. Econ. 5:2 (2002), 111–131.
31. Paludi, M.A., Bauer, W.D., Goldberg revisited: what׳s in an author׳s name. Sex Roles 9:3 (1983), 387–390.
32. Paludi, M.A., Strayer, L.A., What׳s in an author׳s name? Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author׳s name. Sex Roles 12:3–4 (1985), 353–361.
33. Peck, T., When women evaluate women, nothing succeeds like success: the differential effects of status upon evaluations of male and female professional ability. Sex Roles 4:2 (1978), 205–213.
34. Phelps, E.S., The statistical theory of racism and sexism. Am. Econ. Rev., 1972, 659–661.
35. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., How stereotypes impair women׳s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111:12 (2014), 4403–4408.
36. Rosenthal, D.B., Images of scientists: a comparison of biology and liberal studies majors. Sch. Sci. Math. 93:4 (1993), 212–216.
37. Sabelis, I., Schilling, E., Editorial: Frayed careers: exploring rhythms of working lives. Gend. Work Organ. 20:2 (2013), 127–132.
38. Sadker, M., Sadker, D., Failing at Fairness: How America׳s Schools Cheat Girls. 1995, Simon and Schuster, New York.
39. She Figures, 2012. Gender in Research and Innovation: 2012. Technical Report. The European Commission.
40. Sheltzer, J.M., Smith, J.C., Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111:28 (2014), 10107–10112.
41. Smith, N., Smith, V., Verner, M., Why are so few females promoted into ceo and vice president positions? Danish empirical evidence, 1997–2007. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 66:2 (2013), 380–408.
42. Song, J., Kim, K.-S., How Korean students see scientists: the images of the scientist. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21:9 (1999), 957–977.
43. Spear, M.G., The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2:1 (1984), 55–60.
44. Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., Quinn, D.M., Stereotype threat and women׳s math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35:1 (1999), 4–28.
45. Steinke, J., Lapinski, M.K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S.H., Kuchibhotla, S., Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children׳s perceptions of women in science using the draw-a-scientist test (dast). Sci. Commun. 29:1 (2007), 35–64.
46. Tregenza, T., Gender bias in the refereeing process?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:8 (2002), 349–350.
47. Turkmen, H., Turkish primary students׳ perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 4:1 (2008), 55–61.
48. Wenneras, C., Wold, A., 2001. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. In: Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies, pp. 46–52.
49. Wilks, D.C., de Oliveira, A., 2014. Adding gender to the age factor. In: Human Resources Management Challenges: Learning & Development, pp. 177–187.
50. Williams, W.M., Ceci, S.J., National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on stem tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112:17 (2015), 5360–5365.