IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Gender and the evaluation of research

  • Brooks, Chris
  • Fenton, Evelyn M.
  • Walker, James T.

This study examines if and how gender relates to research evaluation via panel assessment and journal ratings lists. Using data from UK business schools we find no evidence that the proportion of women in a submission for panel assessment affected the score received by the submitting institution. However, we do find that women on average receive lower scores according to some journal ratings lists. There are important differences in the rated quality of journals that men and women publish in across the sub-disciplines with men publishing significantly more research in the highest rated accountancy, information management and strategy journals. In addition, women who are able to utilise networks to co-author with individuals outside their institution are able to publish in higher-rated journals, although the same is not true for men; women who are attributed with “individual staff circumstances” (e.g. maternity leave or part-time working) have lower scores according to journal ratings lists.

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313002242
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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 Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

Volume (Year): 43 (2014)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 990-1001

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:43:y:2014:i:6:p:990-1001
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

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.:

as in new window
  1. Jane Waldfogel, 1998. "Understanding the "Family Gap" in Pay for Women with Children," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 137-156, Winter.
  2. Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Ghafar Noury, 2008. "Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2008_014, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  3. Henk F Moed, 2007. "The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 575-583, October.
  4. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2011. "How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1393-1402.
  5. David Blackaby & Alison L Booth & Jeff Frank, 2005. "Outside Offers And The Gender Pay Gap: Empirical Evidence From the UK Academic Labour Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(501), pages F81-F107, 02.
  6. Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Jeffrey Unerman, 2012. "Explicit and Implicit Subject Bias in the ABS Journal Quality Guide," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 3-15, December.
  7. Ward, Melanie E, 2001. "Gender and Promotion in the Academic Profession," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 48(3), pages 283-302, August.
  8. James Walker & Anna Vignoles & Mark Collins, . "Higher education academic salaries in the UK," Economics & Management Discussion Papers em-dp2006-37, Henley Business School, Reading University.
  9. Claire Donovan, 2007. "The qualitative future of research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 585-597, October.
  10. Millimet, Daniel L, 2000. "The Impact of Children on Wages, Job Tenure, and the Division of Household Labour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(462), pages C139-57, March.
  11. Waldfogel, Jane, 1998. "The Family Gap for Young Women in the United States and Britain: Can Maternity Leave Make a Difference?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(3), pages 505-45, July.
  12. Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers," IZA Discussion Papers 2070, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  13. Linda Butler, 2007. "Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 565-574, October.
  14. Pezzoni, Michele & Sterzi, Valerio & Lissoni, Francesco, 2012. "Career progress in centralized academic systems: Social capital and institutions in France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 704-719.
  15. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre, 2012. "Publication records of accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor: evidence from the UK," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 197-231, June.
  16. Browning, Martin, 1992. "Children and Household Economic Behavior," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1434-75, September.
  17. Melanie Ward, 2001. "The gender salary gap in British academia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(13), pages 1669-1681.
  18. Ismael Rafols & Loet Leydesdorff & Alice O'Hare & Paul Nightingale & Andy Stirling, 2011. "How Journal Rankings can suppress Interdisciplinary Research – A Comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," DRUID Working Papers 11-05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
  19. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2004. "Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 193-214, Summer.
  20. Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
  21. Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rorstad & Fredrik Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2011. "Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(4), pages 628-636, 04.
  22. Debra A. Barbezat, 1987. "Salary Differentials by Sex in the Academic Labor Market," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 22(3), pages 422-428.
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:eee:respol:v:43:y:2014:i:6:p:990-1001. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.