IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v8y2018i3d10.1007_s13412-017-0448-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The first 6 years of JESS: categorizing authors and topics

Author

Listed:
  • David Downie

    (Fairfield University)

  • Austin Chinal

    (Fairfield University)

  • Ryan Fritz

    (Fairfield University)

  • Natalie Intemann

    (Fairfield University)

  • Kayla Urbanowski

    (Fairfield University)

Abstract

A variety of studies note that who and what are published in academic journals can affect individual careers, gender and geographic biases, readership and impact of particular journals, how articles are assigned, and other issues. The Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences (JESS) is an important new journal due to its foci, the growing number of environmental science and studies graduate and undergraduate programs, the journal’s stated intent to be multi- and interdisciplinary, and its link to the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences. This short article examines the gender and institutional location of authors published in the first six volumes of JESS (2011–2016), the gender of authors of the books reviewed in the journal, the breakdown of natural science versus social science articles, and the percentage of articles that examine issues related to climate change and teaching. It does so to gather information that might assist JESS improve intellectually or instrumentally and to provide comparison data for similar studies of other journals.

Suggested Citation

  • David Downie & Austin Chinal & Ryan Fritz & Natalie Intemann & Kayla Urbanowski, 2018. "The first 6 years of JESS: categorizing authors and topics," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 371-375, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:8:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s13412-017-0448-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-017-0448-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-017-0448-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-017-0448-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walter Rosenbaum, 2011. "Introducing the journal," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 1-2, March.
    2. Daniel Conley & Johanna Stadmark, 2012. "A call to commission more women writers," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7413), pages 590-590, August.
    3. Alexandra Erhardt & Carlos Rezende & Brian Walker & Dina Franceschi & David Downie, 2015. "Mercury concentrations and awareness in Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil: baseline measures for examining the efficacy of the Minamata Convention," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 517-525, December.
    4. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    5. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    6. Jevin D West & Jennifer Jacquet & Molly M King & Shelley J Correll & Carl T Bergstrom, 2013. "The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    2. Chaojiang Wu & Erjia Yan & Yongjun Zhu & Kai Li, 2021. "Gender imbalance in the productivity of funded projects: A study of the outputs of National Institutes of Health R01 grants," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(11), pages 1386-1399, November.
    3. Stephanie Sardelis & Joshua A Drew, 2016. "Not “Pulling up the Ladder”: Women Who Organize Conference Symposia Provide Greater Opportunities for Women to Speak at Conservation Conferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Torsten Skov, 2020. "Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Jenine K Harris & Merriah A Croston & Ellen T Hutti & Amy A Eyler, 2020. "Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    8. Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Torrini, Roberto, 2017. "Gender effects in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 911-924.
    9. Sandra Krapf & Michaela Kreyenfeld & Katharina Wolf, 2016. "Gendered Authorship and Demographic Research: An Analysis of 50 Years of Demography," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(4), pages 1169-1184, August.
    10. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Liu, Meijun & Zhang, Ning & Hu, Xiao & Jaiswal, Ajay & Xu, Jian & Chen, Hong & Ding, Ying & Bu, Yi, 2022. "Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    12. Andersen, Jens Peter & Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, 2018. "Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 950-959.
    13. Pritchard, Annette & Morgan, Nigel, 2017. "Tourism’s lost leaders: Analysing gender and performance," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 34-47.
    14. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    15. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    17. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    18. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    19. Alecia J Carter & Alyssa Croft & Dieter Lukas & Gillian M Sandstrom, 2018. "Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, September.
    20. Epifanio, Mariaelisa & Troeger, Vera E, 2013. "How much do children really cost? Maternity benefits and career opportunities of women in academia," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 171, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:8:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s13412-017-0448-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.