IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Discrimination in Scientific Review: A Natural Field Experiment on Blind versus Non-Blind Reviews

Listed author(s):
  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Åsa Löfgren
  • Thomas Sterner

This paper analyzes the impacts of gender, as well as other author characteristics, on reviewers’ 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.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Article provided by Wiley Blackwell in its journal Scandinavian Journal of Economics.

Volume (Year): 114 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 (06)
Pages: 500-519

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:scandj:v:114:y:2012:i:2:p:500-519
DOI: j.1467-9442.2011.01690.x
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

in new window

  1. 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.
  2. Christina Jonung & Ann-Charlotte Ståhlberg, 2008. "Reaching the Top? On Gender Balance in the Economics Profession," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 174-192, May.
  3. Catherine Hakim, 2008. "Diversity in Tastes, Values, and Preferences: Comment on Jonung and Ståhlberg," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 204-218, May.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Christina Jonung & Ann-Charlotte Ståhlberg, 2009. "Does Economics Have a Gender?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(1), pages 60-72, January.
  7. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
  8. Ann Mari May, 2008. "On Gender Balance in the Economics Profession," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(2), pages 193-198, May.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 1041-1067, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:scandj:v:114:y:2012:i:2:p:500-519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.