IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20230044.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender and the time cost of peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Diane Alexander

    (Wharton School)

  • Olga Gorelkina

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Erin Hengel

    (London School of Economics)

  • Richard Tol

    (University of Sussex)

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate one factor that can directly contribute to—as well as indirectly shed light on the other causes of—the gender gap in academic publishing: length of peer review. Using detailed administrative data from an economics field journal, we find that, conditional on manuscript quality, referees spend longer reviewing female-authored papers, are slower to recommend accepting them, manuscripts by women go through more rounds of review and their authors spend longer revising them. Less disaggregated data from 32 economics and finance journals corroborate these results. We conclude by showing that all gender gaps decline—and eventually disappear—as the same referee reviews more papers. This pattern suggests novice referees initially statistically discriminate against female authors, but are less likely to do so as their information about and confidence in the peer review process improves. More generally, they also suggest that women may be particularly disadvantaged when evaluators are less familiar with the objectives and parameters of an assessment framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Diane Alexander & Olga Gorelkina & Erin Hengel & Richard Tol, 2023. "Gender and the time cost of peer review," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-044/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20230044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/23044.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    2. Dion, Michelle L. & Sumner, Jane Lawrence & Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, 2018. "Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 312-327, 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. repec:sus:susewp:0323 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Koffi, Marlene, 2021. "Innovative ideas and gender inequality," CLEF Working Paper Series 35, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    3. Erin Hengel & Eunyoung Moon, 2020. "Gender and quality at top economics journals," Working Papers 202001, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    4. Barth, Erling & Davis, James C. & Freeman, Richard B. & McElheran, Kristina, 2023. "Twisting the demand curve: Digitalization and the older workforce," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 443-467.
    5. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2023. "Committee Deliberation and Gender Differences in Influences," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 398, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/65v9ag2jfn865abjgaljmq2qi9 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    9. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2020. "Interview Sequences and the Formation of Subjective Assessments," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 045, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    10. Waldinger, Fabian & Hager, Sebastian & Schwarz, Carlo, 2023. "Measuring Science: Performance Metrics and the Allocation of Talent," CEPR Discussion Papers 18248, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    12. Petrongolo, Barbara & Ronchi, Maddalena, 2020. "Gender gaps and the structure of local labor markets," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Iriberri, Nagore & Funk, Patricia & Savio, Giulia, 2022. "Does Scarcity of Female Instructors Create Demand for Diversity among Students? Evidence from an M-Turk Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 14190, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Marcelo Castillo & Diane Charlton, 2023. "Housing booms and H‐2A agricultural guest worker employment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(2), pages 709-731, March.
    15. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & María Inés Moraes & Tatiana Pérez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790, October.
    16. Lawson, Nicholas, 2023. "What citation tests really tell us about bias in academic publishing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Donna K. Ginther & Rina Na, 2021. "Does Mentoring Increase the Collaboration Networks of Female Economists? An Evaluation of the CeMENT Randomized Trial," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 80-85, May.
    18. Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Tam-Tri Le & Manh-Toan Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Syed Hasan & Robert Breunig, 2021. "Article length and citation outcomes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7583-7608, September.
    20. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2022. "Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 1937-1971, September.
    21. Hamish Low & Luigi Pistaferri, 2019. "Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences," Economics Series Working Papers 889, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    22. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2023. "Gender and Collaboration," ThE Papers 23/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender Inequality; Statistical Discrimination; Research Productivity; Peer Review.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J7 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - 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:tin:wpaper:20230044. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.