Citation dice are loaded

Dear Editors, The article by Rosalind Dixon and Mila Versteeg in this issue (21:2), titled “Unsexing Citations: Closing the Gender Gap in Global Public Law,” asks whether citation patterns in I•CON reflect the gender composition of the ICON•S community, the scholars publishing in I•CON, or those reading I•CON. Differently put, do cross citations reveal a gender bias in the academia? The authors convincingly demonstrate that—as Leonard Cohen puts it—the dice are loaded. The article is sobering in showing how prima facie unbiased (gender-neutral) practices and routines perpetuate (gender) bias. It is provocative, in part attributing this fact to subtle advantages of informal, male-dominated networks. Finally, it is visceral in highlighting the academic merit-independent drivers of academic success. I applaud I•CON for sticking its neck out for the cause. Supposing that debate can encourage a healthier (more equal) academic life(style), let me contrast the conclusions of “Unsexing Citations” with the conclusions of an article by David Card et al., “Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?” published in 2020 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (vol. 135, at 269).