Is the gender citation gap in international relations driven by elite papers?

Research and Politics

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Zigerell, L J ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Citations; Gender

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008454298     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20531680     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2053168015585192     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bueno de Mesquita B et al. (2003) Symposium on replication in international studies research. International Studies Perspectives 4(1): 72–107.
2. Cumming G and Finch S (2005) Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist 60(2): 170–180.
3. Garand JC and Giles MW (2003) Journals in the discipline: A report on a new survey of American political scientists. Political Science and Politics 36(2): 293–308.
4. Gelman A and Loken E (2013) The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Available at: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_ hacking.pdf (accessed 30 June 2014).
5. King G (1995) Replication, replication. PS: Political Science & Politics 28(3): 444–452.
6. Lupia A and Elman C (2014) Openness in political science: Data access and research transparency. PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 19–42.
7. Maliniak D et al. (2011) International relations in the US Academy. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 437–464.
8. Maliniak D et al. (2013) The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization 67(4): 889–922.
9. Østby G et al. (2013) Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? Publication patterns and citation rates for Journal of Peace Research, 1983–2008. International Studies Perspectives 14(4): 493–506.
10. Simmons B (2013) The gender citations gap: A glass half-full perspective. The Monkey Cage. The Washington Post. 4 October. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/04/the-gender-citations-gap-a-glass-half-full-perspective/(accessed 29 April 2015).
11. Simmons JP et al. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.
12. Walter BF (2013) How to reduce the gender gap in one (rela-tively) easy step. The Monkey Cage. The Washington Post. 1 October. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/01/how-to-reduce-the-gender-gap-in-one-relatively-easy-step/(accessed 29 April 2015).
13. Wang M et al. (2011) Mining typical features for highly cited papers. Scientometrics 87(3): 695–706.