Discrimination in Scientific Review: A Natural Field Experiment on Blind versus Non-Blind Reviews
AbstractThis paper analyzes the impacts of gender, as well as other author characteristics, on reviewersâ grading of papers submitted to an international conference in economics in Sweden in 2008. Correcting for other variables, including country and research field as well as researcher academic level, we focus on the difference in grades between blind and non-blind review treatments. We find little effect of non-blind reviewing and no significant evidence of gender or any other type of discrimination. Furthermore, we do not find any significant difference between the average grading by female and male reviewers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Wiley Blackwell in its journal Scandinavian Journal of Economics.
Volume (Year): 114 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 (06)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9442
Other versions of this item:
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Löfgren, Åsa & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "Discrimination in Scientific Review - A natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind review," Working Papers in Economics 419, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
- J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Subhra Bhattacharjee & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2007.
"The Status of Women in Environmental Economics,"
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy,
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 212-227, Summer.
- Christina Jonung & Ann-Charlotte StÃ¥hlberg, 2009. "Does Economics Have a Gender?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(1), pages 60-72, January.
- Christina Jonung & Ann-Charlotte StÃ¥hlberg, 2008. "Reaching the Top? On Gender Balance in the Economics Profession," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 174-192, May.
- Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2008. "Mr. Max and the Substantial Errors of Manly Economics," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 199-203, May.
- Larry D. Singell & John M. McDowell & James P. Ziliak, 1999. "Cracks in the Glass Ceiling: Gender and Promotion in the Economics Profession," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 392-396, May.
- Ann Mari May, 2008. "On Gender Balance in the Economics Profession," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 193-198, May.
- Garett Jones, 2008. "What Is the Right Number of Women? Hints and Puzzles from Cognitive Ability Research," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 227-239, May.
- Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-74, June.
- Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-67, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.