Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks

Avin, Chen; Keller, Barbara; Lotker, Zvi; Mathieu, Claire; Peleg, David; Pignolet, Yvonne-Anne

doi:10.1145/2688073.2688097

Cited by 67 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Women's under-represented in higher education institutions and universities across the globe, and especially in the most powerful or influential posts, is well established (Avin et al 2015;Bruckmüller et al 2014;Cook and Glass 2014;Howe-Walsh et al 2014;Machado-Taylor and Özkanli 2013;Montez et al 2003;Taylor-Abdulai et al 2014;Zeng 2011) developing countries like Pakistan, is no exemption (Saher, Ali, & Matloob 2014). Higher education institutes and universities are facing increasingly complex challenges in attracting and retaining women (Uche et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to women’s representation in academic excellence and positions of power

Yousaf

Schmiede

2017

Asian j. Ger. Eur. stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly for half a century women's advancement in the workplace has been in a debate. Women's under-represented in higher education institutions and universities across the globe, and especially in the most powerful or influential posts, is well established. Despite gender equality commitments and women's educational attainment, still, they are underrepresented. Regions and countries may vary in term of culture, achievements and development, but barriers for women's representation in academia are surprisingly similar in many regions. It is found that there are several barriers which women might be experiencing in academia ranging from personal, organizational to societal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to women’s representation in academic excellence and positions of power

Yousaf

Schmiede

2017

Asian j. Ger. Eur. stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another is having resources females feel comfortable using as they deem necessary [18]. In an effort to relate these disparities, there is research to support the experiences of females in classroom [19,20] and corporate settings [21]. However, these do not prescribe solutions for online community-based resources.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradise unplugged: identifying barriers for female participation on stack overflow

Ford

SMITH

Guo

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is no secret that females engage less in programming fields than males. However, in online communities, such as Stack Overflow, this gender gap is even more extreme: only 5.8% of contributors are female. In this paper, we use a mixedmethods approach to identify contribution barriers females face in online communities. Through 22 semi-structured interviews with a spectrum of female users ranging from noncontributors to a top 100 ranked user of all time, we identified 14 barriers preventing them from contributing to Stack Overflow. We then conducted a survey with 1470 female and male developers to confirm which barriers are gender related or general problems for everyone. Females ranked five barriers significantly higher than males. A few of these include doubts in the level of expertise needed to contribute, feeling overwhelmed when competing with a large number of users, and limited awareness of site features. Still, there were other barriers that equally impacted all Stack Overflow users or affected particular groups, such as industry programmers. Finally, we describe several implications that may encourage increased participation in the Stack Overflow community across genders and other demographics.

show abstract

“…Increasing representation of women and scientists from a more diverse set of nations among 588 eLife's editor may lead to more diverse pool of peer reviewers and reviewing editors and a more 589 equitable peer review process. Editors often invite peer reviewers from their own professional 590 networks, networks that likely reflect the characteristics of the editor [76][77][78]; this can lead to 591 editors, who tend to be men [14, [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] and from scientifically advanced countries [75] to invite 592 peer reviewers who are demographically similar to themselves [44,79,80], inadvertently 593 excluding certain groups from the gatekeeping process. Accordingly, we found that male 594…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

124

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

show abstract

Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks

Cited by 67 publications

References 36 publications

Barriers to women’s representation in academic excellence and positions of power

Barriers to women’s representation in academic excellence and positions of power

Paradise unplugged: identifying barriers for female participation on stack overflow

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About