Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences*

Hospido, Laura; Sanz, Carlos

doi:10.1111/obes.12409

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings make three main contributions. First, we contribute to an emerging literature within economics on gender-related differences in the evaluation of scientific work, including studies by Chari and Goldsmith-Pinkham (2017) and Hospido and Sanz (2019) on conference submissions, on journal submissions, and Sarsons et al (2021) on coauthorship and promotions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While the problem concerns mainly the STEM fields, economics, as a social science, is considered an "outlier" and not in a good way (Ceci et al 2014;3 Fourcade et al 2015;Bayer and Rouse 2016;Wu 2018). Focusing on the economics profession, the current literature describes structural and organizational barriers which might impede women's climb in their careers (Lundberg 2020;Costantini and Zacchia 2019;Allgood et al 2019;Vettese 2019;Hospido and Sanz 2019). Lundberg and Stearns (2019), focusing on the US, identified two main mechanisms through which the barriers against women in economics may operate: differences in productivity (quantity and quality of publications) between men and women, and differences in how they are evaluated.…”

Section: Background and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does It Take to Be Top Women Economists? An Analysis Using Rankings in RePEc

Zacchia

2020

Review of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women are substantially under-represented in the field of economics all around the world: their progress is slow and just few women reach top positions. From the 1980s, studies document the clear barriers and implicit biases in publishing, promotion, and tenure that women face to enter and to success in the field. The paper aims at contributing to this strand of literature proposing an analysis of gender differences in economics focusing on "excellence" in the profession and in the way the discipline is conceiving and reproducing it in rankings. Using RePEc as a dataset, I test how different definitions of excellence can systematically advantage or disadvantage women's visibility in rankings of top economists and how it impacts on their probability to receive rightful recognition in academia. I found that, even among top economists, being a woman significantly reduces the probability of reaching the top of the profession by almost 15 pp. The results also underline a problematic relationship between gender and excellence that sets the bar higher for women in reaching the top of the academic career. Women economists, despite their efforts to increase their visibility, tend to receive less recognition than men in terms of promotion to full-professorship based on the criterion of excellence in which they excel. In fact, women are penalised in their academic progresses, not only for their lower productivity in terms of number of published articles than their male colleagues but also for lower returns in promotions for their high performance in terms of citations received. Challenging the assumption about gender neutral excellence is a first important step to challenge power hierarchical patriarchal structures in the economics profession and to advance the representation of women and diverse individuals in apical roles in economics.

show abstract

“…Early studies emphasized gender discrimination (Rouse and Goldin (2000)) and di↵erences in skill levels (Goldin et al (2006)). More recently, researchers have also documented gender di↵erences in preferences for competition (Niederle and Vesterlund (2007), Buser et al (2014), Hospido et al (2019)) and in the balance between family and work (Bertrand (2013), Azmat and Ferrer (2017), Bursztyn et al (2017), Keloharju et al (2019) and Hospido et al (2019)). In addition, several studies have also pointed out the role of reviewers in candidate selection processes, whose decisions may be a↵ected by implicit bias, gender stereotypes or other factors (Bagues and Esteve-Volart (2010), Breda and Ly (2015), Hospido and Sanz (2019), Farré and Ortega (2019), Montalban and Sevilla (2020)).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%