Contextualizing Gender Disparity in Editorship in Psychological Science

Abstract

Discourse on gender diversity tends to overlook differences across levels of hierarchy (e.g., students, faculty, and editors) and critical dimensions (e.g., subdisciplines and geographical locations). Further ignored is its intersection with global diversity—representation from different countries. Here we document and contextualize gender disparity from perspectives of equal versus expected representation in journal editorship, by analyzing 68 top psychology journals in 10 subdisciplines. First, relative to ratios as students and faculty, women are underrepresented as editorial-board members (41%) and—unlike previous results based on one subfield—as editors-in-chief (34%) as well. Second, female ratios in editorship vary substantially across subdisciplines, genres of scholarship (higher in empirical and review journals than in method journals), continents/countries/regions (e.g., higher in North America than in Europe), and journal countries of origin (e.g., higher in American journals than in European journals). Third, under female (vs. male) editors-in-chief, women are much better represented as editorial-board members (47% vs. 36%), but the geographical diversity of editorial-board members and authorship decreases. These results reveal new local and broad contexts of gender diversity in editorship in psychology, with policy implications. Our approach also offers a methodological guideline for similar disparity research in other fields.

Mind the gender gap: The social neuroscience of belonging

“…. a "powerful influencing factor in the landscape of scholarship" (Lin and Li, 2023). Even where the representation of women in a scientific discipline is proportionally high, it is clear that they do not proportionally achieve the positions of power offered by various editorship roles (Lin and Li, 2023).…”

Global Diversity of Authors, Editors, and Journal Ownership Across Subdisciplines of Psychology: Current State and Policy Implications

“…The gender disparity of STEM tenure-track assistant professors in the United States might not necessarily reflect different rejection rates for male and female applicants but different application rates—women appear to be far less likely than men to apply (Ceci et al, 2014). On the other hand, although survey experiments reveal that female applicants are preferred over otherwise identical male applicants in the United States (Williams & Ceci, 2015) and the Nordic region (Carlsson et al, 2021), biases against women in academic hiring have also been documented, such as relationship-status discrimination (Rivera, 2017), reflecting the wider sociocultural context such as cultural stereotypes and organizational practices (Gruber et al, 2021; Lin & Li, in press; Llorens et al, 2021). In the present context, disparity in authorship and editorship may be interconnected, and both may also be influenced by journal ownership, highlighting the importance of examining disparity across multiple levels.…”

“…Recent work on the diversity of gender (e.g., Gruber et al, 2021; Lin & Li, in press) and race (e.g., Roberts et al, 2020) in psychological science has highlighted gender gaps and racial inequality in psychological research. Here, we focus on global diversity (i.e., geographical or international diversification; Espin et al, 2017; Hodgson & Rothman, 1999)—a topic that has remained poorly understood in psychology (Cheon et al, 2020).…”

Dealing with Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

“…To ensure that psychological science is not limited by any particular ideology, especially given that diverse researchers, methods, and participants are important for scientific innovation, replicability, and generalizability (Hofstra et al, 2020;Medin et al, 2017;Rozin, 2009), psychological scientists have for decades documented the shortcomings of a discipline that lacks cultural diversity, gender diversity, geographic diversity, political diversity, racial diversity, and more (e.g., Arnett, 2008;Betancourt & López, 1993;Buchanen at el., 2021;Cole, 2009;Duarte et al, 2015;Dupree & Boykin, 2021;Dupree & Kraus, 2021;Henrich et al, 2010;Honeycutt & Jussim, 2020;Jones & Dovidio, 2018;Lin & Li, 2022a;2022b;Markus & Kitayama, 1991;Nielsen et al, 2017;Dunham & Olson, 2016;Rowley & Camacho, 2015;Schmader, 2022;Wang, 2016). And in the specific domain of racial diversity, psychological scientists have documented such shortcomings for decades.…”

“…Even if the editors, authors, and participants involved with the articles published in such a journal numerically represented the demographic groups from the specific geographical, socioeconomic, and institutional contexts in which those journals were located, one would not be justified in presenting the findings published in those journals as generalizable to all of humanity (see Cheon et al, 2020;Roberts & Mortenson, 2022). Relatedly, most editors at top psychology journals are not only White, they are also male and from the United States (Lin & Li, 2022a;2022b). How might base rates account for this?…”