Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists

Scientometrics

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 113-141

  Fell, Clemens B ^a   König, Cornelius J ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Gender differences; Impact; Networking; Research productivity; Scientific productivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966713032     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5     Document Type: Article

References (149)

1. Abbar, S., Mejova, Y., & Weber, I. (2015). You tweet what you eat: Studying food consumption through Twitter. In B. Begole, J. Kim, K. Inkpen, & W. Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI) (pp. 3197–3206). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702153.
2. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 403–412. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002.
3. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79, 517–539. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8.
4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 811–822. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002.
5. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 957–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x.
6. Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 284–303. doi:10.1111/iops.12151.
7. Aho, K. A. (2014). Foundational and applied statistics for biologists using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
8. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9. 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.
10. American Psychological Association. (2013). Demographic characteristics of APA members by membership status. http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/13-member/table-1.pdf.
11. American Psychological Association. (2015). PsycINFO(R): A world-class resource for behavioral and social science research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/psycinfo-printable-fact-sheet.pdf.
12. Aquino, J. (2014). descr: Descriptive statistics (Version 1.0.4). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=descr.
13. Aquino, J. (2015). descr: Descriptive statistics (Version 1.1.1). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=descr.
14. Bagilhole, B. (1993). How to keep a good woman down: An investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14, 261–274. doi:10.1080/0142569930140303.
15. Barnard-Brak, L., Saxon, T. F., & Johnson, H. (2011). Publication productivity among doctoral graduates of educational psychology programs at research universities before and after the year 2000. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 65–73. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9146-3.
16. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781.
17. 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.
18. Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., & Wrangham, R. (2014). Rank influences human sex differences in dyadic cooperation. Current Biology, 24, R190–R191. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.047.
19. Bevelander, D., & Page, M. J. (2011). Ms. Trust: Gender, networks and trust—implications for management and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 623–642. doi:10.5465/amle.2009.0138.
20. Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53, 195–206. doi:10.1023/A:1014800407876.
21. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.
22. Boscardin, W. J. (2013, October 25). Approaches to handling missing data. Presented at the K-Scholars Seminar, San Francisco, CA. http://www.epibiostat.ucsf.edu/courses/RoadmapK12/11AM_seminars/boscardin102513.pdf.
23. Boschini, A., & Sjögren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 325–365. doi:10.1086/510764.
24. Bowden, R. (2011, January 31). How to be a successful scientist. Naturejobs. Blog. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/01/31/how-to-be-a-successful-scientist.
25. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.
26. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393–1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002.
27. Brown, A. (2014). Double-blind under review. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 871–872. doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.265.
28. Capéraà, P., & Genest, C. (1993). Spearman’s ρ is larger than Kendall’s τ for positively dependent random variables. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, 2, 183–194. doi:10.1080/10485259308832551.
29. Castelvecchi, D. (2015, May 15). Physics paper sets record with more than 5000 authors. Nature News & Comment. http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567.
30. 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.
31. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153/facilitating-interdisciplinary-research.
32. Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. (N. J. Cooke & M. L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science.
33. Costa, P. J., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 110–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322.
34. Costanza, D. P., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). The fifth scenario: Identity expansion in organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 281–285. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01240.x.
35. de Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I—professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84. doi:10.1007/BF02016840.
36. De Meuse, K. P., Yang, K. Y., & Feil, J. (2014). A critical analysis of topical content and authorship trends in applied psychology. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51, 20–35. http://www.siop.org/tip/april14/demeuse.pdf.
37. de Solla Price, D. J., & de Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018. doi:10.1037/h0024051.
38. De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35, 370–381. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.004.
39. del Re, A. C. (2013). compute.es: Compute effect sizes. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es.
40. Demarest, B., Freeman, G., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). The reviewer in the mirror: Examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review. Scientometrics, 101, 717–735. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1354-z.
41. Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77, 385–407. doi:10.1111/obes.12070.
42. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
43. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
44. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 473–502. doi:10.1023/A:1023400201387.
46. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Ven, T. M. V., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 847–856. doi:10.2307/420730.
47. 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/.
48. Fu, F., Nowak, M. A., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). The evolution of homophily. Scientific Reports, 2(845), 1–6. doi:10.1038/srep00845.
49. Garg, K. C., & Kumar, S. (2013). 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.
50. Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87, 251–265. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8.
51. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 323–335. doi:10.1002/asi.21688.
52. Genderize.io. (2015, June). Genderize.io | Determine the gender of a first name. https://genderize.io/#overview.
53. Gentile, B., Grabe, S., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Twenge, J. M., Wells, B. E., & Maitino, A. (2009). Gender differences in domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 13, 34–45. doi:10.1037/a0013689.
54. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50, 461.
55. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics… and beyond? Scientometrics, 30, 375–384. doi:10.1007/BF02018107.
56. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9.
57. Hankin, R. K. S. (2006). Special functions in R: Introducing the gsl package. R News, 6(4), 24–26. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gsl/vignettes/gslpaper.pdf.015.
58. Harzing, A.-W. (2012). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057–1075. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7.
59. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
60. Hekelman, D. F. P., Zyzanski, S. J., & Flocke, S. A. (1995). Successful and less-successful research performance of junior faculty. Research in Higher Education, 36, 235–255. doi:10.1007/BF02207790.
61. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
62. Hlavac, M. (2015). stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer.
63. Holgate, S. A. (2012). How to collaborate. Science Career Magazine,. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1200082.
64. Holliday, C. O. (2012). Universities, key to prosperity. Science, 336, 1482. doi:10.1126/science.1225457.
65. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M. A., & Zeileis, A. (2008). Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. Journal of Statistical Software,. doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i08.
66. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
67. Ingraham, C. (2014, May 31). There are 39 major studio releases coming this summer: Only one is directed by a woman. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/31/there-are-39-major-studio-releases-coming-this-summer-only-one-is-directed-by-a-woman/.
68. Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2013). Childbearing and (female) research productivity: A personnel economics perspective on the leaky pipeline. Journal of Business Economics, 84, 517–530. doi:10.1007/s11573-013-0676-2.
69. Johnson, P. E. (2015). rockchalk: Regression estimation and presentation. Lawrence, KS: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences - Political Science, Center for Research Methods & Data Analysis. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rockchalk/index.html.
70. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286.
71. Jyrkinen, M., & McKie, L. (2012). Gender, age and ageism: Experiences of women managers in Finland and Scotland. Work, Employment & Society, 26, 61–77. doi:10.1177/0950017011426313.
72. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.
73. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603–625. doi:10.1177/1075547012472684.
74. Koller, M., & Stahel, W. A. (2011). Sharpening Wald-type inference in robust regression for small samples. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 2504–2515. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2011.02.014.
75. König, C. J., Fell, C. B., Kellnhofer, L., & Schui, G. (2015). Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Scientometrics, 105, 1931–1952. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1646-y.
76. Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists’ research activities and professional information-seeking behaviour: Empirical analyses with reference to the theory of the intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Journal of Information Science, 37, 439–450. doi:10.1177/0165551511412148.
77. Kretschmer, H., Kundra, R., de Beaver, D. B., & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics, 93, 135–150. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0661-5.
78. Kruskal, W. H. (1958). Ordinal measures of association. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 814–861. doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501481.
79. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 54–71. doi:10.1177/016224399602100103.
80. Lander, E. S., Linton, L. M., Birren, B., Nusbaum, C., Zody, M. C., Baldwin, J., et al. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860–921. doi:10.1038/35057062.
81. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a.
82. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702. doi:10.1177/0306312705052359.
83. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
84. Lips, H. M. (2013). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations: Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68, 169–185. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
85. Malakoff, D. (2000). Does science drive the productivity train? Science, 289, 1274–1276. doi:10.1126/science.289.5483.1274.
86. Malouff, J., Schutte, N., & Priest, J. (2010). Publication rates of Australian academic psychologists. Australian Psychologist, 45, 78–83. doi:10.1080/00050060903078536.
87. Mayrath, M. C. (2007). Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 41–56. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9059-y.
88. McCormick, C. B., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Getting started in academia: A guide for educational psychologists. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 5–18. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9058-z.
89. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586.
90. McDonald, P., Guthrie, D., Bradley, L., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2005). Investigating work-family policy aims and employee experiences. Employee Relations, 27, 478–494. doi:10.1108/01425450510612013.
91. McDowell, J. M., Singell, J., Larry, D., & Stater, M. (2006). Two to tango? Gender differences in the decisions to publish and coauthor. Economic Inquiry, 44, 153–168. doi:10.1093/ei/cbi065.
92. McGovern, V. (2009). Perspective: How to succeed in big science and still get tenure. Science Career Magazine,. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a0900092.
93. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
94. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1.
95. Menking, A. (2015, March 9). Gender as a text field: What Wikipedia can learn from Facebook. Wikimedia blog. Blog. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/09/gender-as-a-text-field/.
96. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
97. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238. doi:10.1177/000312240406900204.
98. Moore, A., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 296–302. doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.623197.
99. Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A., & Parenti, I. V. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9.
100. National Science Board. (2014). Science & engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/etc/nsb1401.pdf.
101. Nature Editorial. (2013). Science for all. Nature, 495, 5. doi:10.1038/495005a.
102. Navarro, D. (2015). Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.5). Adelaide: University of Adelaide. http://ua.edu.au/ccs/teaching/lsr.
103. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 404–409. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404.
104. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100.
105. O*NET. (2014). Details report for: 19-3032.00—Industrial-organizational psychologists. http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/19-3032.00.
106. O*NET. (2015, July 23). Work activities: Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. O*NET OnLine. http://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.A.4.a.4?a=1.
107. Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics, 98, 703–723. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y.
108. Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Interface, 11, 20140378. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.
109. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421–432. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d.
110. Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27–58. doi:10.1023/A:1016046819457.
111. Raan, A. F. J. V. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428. doi:10.1007/BF02458380.
112. R Core Team. (2015a). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version x64 3.2.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
113. R Core Team. (2015b). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version x64 3.1.3). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
114. Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
115. 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.
116. Rosenthal, P., Guest, D., & Peccei, R. (1996). Gender difference in managers’ causal explanations for their work performance: A study in two organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 145–151. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00606.x.
117. Rousseeuw, P., Croux, C., Todorov, V., Ruckstuhl, A., Salibian-Barrera, M., Verbeke, T., et al. (2015). robustbase: Basic robust statistics. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robustbase.
118. Rupert, P. A., & Kent, J. S. (2007). Gender and work setting differences in career-sustaining behaviors and burnout among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 88–96. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.1.88.
119. Sarkar, D. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York, NY: Springer. http://lmdvr.r-forge.r-project.org.
120. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299.
121. Schui, G., & Krampen, G. (2015). ZPID-Monitor 2012 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der Kurzbericht [2012 ZPID Monitor on the internationality of psychology in the German-speaking countries: Brief report]. Psychologische Rundschau, 66, 124–127. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000234.
122. Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39, 319–335. doi:10.1023/A:1018781118312.
123. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
124. Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10107–10112. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403334111.
125. Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M., & Allesina, S. (2014). The scientific impact of nations: Journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE, 9, e109195. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109195.
126. Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. (2014, August 7). Div. 44 Bylaws. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/about/index.aspx. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/about/bylaws.aspx.
127. Solymos, P. (2014). pbapply: Adding progress bar to “*apply” functions. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pbapply.
128. Spurk, D., Meinecke, A. L., Kauffeld, S., & Volmer, J. (2015). Gender, professional networks, and subjective career success within early academic science careers: The role of gender composition in inside and outside departmental support networks. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 121–130. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000131.
129. Tate, C. C., Ledbetter, J. N., & Youssef, C. P. (2013). A two-question method for assessing gender categories in the social and medical sciences. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 767–776. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.690110.
130. Temple Lang, D. (2013). XML: Tools for parsing and generating XML within R and S-Plus. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=XML.
131. Temple Lang, D. (2015). RCurl: General network (HTTP/FTP/…) client interface for R. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RCurl.
132. Thomson Reuters. (2013a). Journal Citation Reports(R) Science Edition 2012. JCR-Web 4.5 Welcome. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
133. Thomson Reuters. (2013b). Journal Citation Reports(R) Social Science Edition 2012. JCR-Web 4.5 Welcome. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
134. Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon, F. G. (2015). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management, Advance online publication,. doi:10.1177/0149206315599216.
135. Üsdiken, B. (1996). Importing theories of management and organization: The case of Turkish academia. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 33–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40397344.
136. van Emmerik, I. H. (2006). Gender differences in the creation of different types of social capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28, 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.002.
137. Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291, 1304–1351. doi:10.1126/science.1058040.
138. Wais, K. (2015a). genderizeR: Gender prediction based on first names (Version 1.2.0). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=genderizeR.
139. Wais, K. (2015b). genderizeR: Gender prediction based on first names (Version 1.1.0). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=genderizeR.
140. Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.491.
141. West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8, e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.
142. Wickham, H. (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i01/paper.
143. Wickham, H. (2012). stringr: Make it easier to work with strings. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr.
144. Wolff, H.-G., & Muck, P. M. (2009). Persönlichkeit und Networking: Eine Analyse mittels interpersonalem Circumplex [Personality and networking: An analysis based on the interpersonal circumplex]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 8, 106–116. doi:10.1026/1617-6391.8.3.106.
145. Yatani, K. (2014). Wilcoxon Signed-rank test. http://yatani.jp/teaching/doku.php?id=hcistats:wilcoxonsigned.
146. Yohai, V. J. (1987). High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. The Annals of Statistics, 15, 642–656. doi:10.1214/aos/1176350366.
147. Young, L. (2014, September 9). Women make up more than half the U.S. population, less than one fourth of U.S. House witnesses. Sunlight Foundation. Blog. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/09/women-make-up-half-the-u-s-population-one-fourth-of-u-s-house-witnesses/.
148. Yuret, T. (2014). Why do economists publish less? Applied Economics Letters, 21, 760–762. doi:10.1080/13504851.2014.889792.
149. Zawacki-Richter, O., & von Prummer, C. (2010). Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25, 95–114. doi:10.1080/02680511003787297.