IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0419.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discrimination in Scientific Review - A natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind review

Author

Listed:
  • Carlsson, Fredrik

    () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Löfgren, Åsa

    () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Sterner, Thomas

    () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/21527
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

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

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender discrimination; review;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:gunwpe:0419. 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: (Marie Andersson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.