The Gender Publication Gap Revisited: Evidence from the International Political Science Review

Theresa Reidy, Daniel Stockemer
{"title":"The Gender Publication Gap Revisited: Evidence from the International Political Science Review","authors":"Theresa Reidy, Daniel Stockemer","doi":"10.1017/s1049096524000039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Since the 1990s, there has been consensus in the literature of a submission and publication gap that favors men. Important research in the intervening years has explored the many reasons for this output gap: imbalanced administrative workloads; bias in top journals against female-dominated subfields and methodological approaches; and lower confidence levels among women, sometimes known as the “Matthew effect.” However, in the intervening period, there has been a notable emphasis on recruiting more women into academia, and the importance of publishing for career development has intensified. Journal case studies have highlighted a growth in output by women academics but show that men are still overrepresented. Using a case study of the International Political Science Review (IPSR), we contribute to the emerging body of work that shows that the gender gap has diminished or even been eliminated. We present data on submissions and acceptances by gender, and we base our comparisons in the gender balance of the departments of submitting authors. The results are clear, for IPSR, the gender gap has closed and women now publish on a par with their men colleagues in their department.","PeriodicalId":515403,"journal":{"name":"PS: Political Science & Politics","volume":"48 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PS: Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096524000039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the 1990s, there has been consensus in the literature of a submission and publication gap that favors men. Important research in the intervening years has explored the many reasons for this output gap: imbalanced administrative workloads; bias in top journals against female-dominated subfields and methodological approaches; and lower confidence levels among women, sometimes known as the “Matthew effect.” However, in the intervening period, there has been a notable emphasis on recruiting more women into academia, and the importance of publishing for career development has intensified. Journal case studies have highlighted a growth in output by women academics but show that men are still overrepresented. Using a case study of the International Political Science Review (IPSR), we contribute to the emerging body of work that shows that the gender gap has diminished or even been eliminated. We present data on submissions and acceptances by gender, and we base our comparisons in the gender balance of the departments of submitting authors. The results are clear, for IPSR, the gender gap has closed and women now publish on a par with their men colleagues in their department.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视性别出版差距:来自《国际政治学评论》的证据
自 20 世纪 90 年代以来,文献一致认为,投稿和发表论文的差距有利于男性。在此期间进行的重要研究探讨了造成这种产出差距的多种原因:不平衡的行政工作量;顶级期刊对女性主导的子领域和方法的偏见;以及女性较低的自信水平,有时被称为 "马太效应"。不过,在此期间,学术界明显强调要招募更多女性,发表论文对职业发展的重要性也有所加强。期刊案例研究凸显了女学者产出的增长,但也表明男性的比例仍然过高。通过对《国际政治学评论》(IPSR)的案例研究,我们为新出现的显示性别差距已经缩小甚至消除的研究成果做出了贡献。我们提供了按性别分列的投稿和录用数据,并根据投稿作者所在部门的性别平衡情况进行了比较。结果很明显,就《国际学术研究报告》而言,性别差距已经缩小,女性发表的论文与其所在部门的男性同事不相上下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Surveying the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Political Science Education Citations to the Publications of Male and Female Political Scientists Revisited State Municipal Associations as Intermediaries in Service Learning Codes of Conduct at Political Science Conferences: Prevalence and Content Developing a Critical Understanding of Environmental Activism through Active Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1