EvoLang会议上的双盲审查和性别偏见:最新情况

IF 2.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Journal of Language Evolution Pub Date : 2019-10-12 DOI:10.1093/jole/lzz007
C. Cuskley, Seán G. Roberts, Stephen Politzer-Ahles, T. Verhoef
{"title":"EvoLang会议上的双盲审查和性别偏见:最新情况","authors":"C. Cuskley, Seán G. Roberts, Stephen Politzer-Ahles, T. Verhoef","doi":"10.1093/jole/lzz007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A previous study of reviewing at the Evolution of Language conferences found effects that suggested that gender bias against female authors was alleviated under double-blind review at EvoLang 11. We update this analysis in two specific ways. First, we add data from the most recent EvoLang 12 conference, providing a comprehensive picture of the conference over five iterations. Like EvoLang 11, EvoLang 12 used double-blind review, but EvoLang 12 showed no significant difference in review scores between genders. We discuss potential explanations for why there was a strong effect in EvoLang 11, which is largely absent in EvoLang 12. These include testing whether readability differs between genders, though we find no evidence to support this. Although gender differences seem to have declined for EvoLang 12, we suggest that double-blind review provides a more equitable evaluation process.","PeriodicalId":37118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language Evolution","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jole/lzz007","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences: An update\",\"authors\":\"C. Cuskley, Seán G. Roberts, Stephen Politzer-Ahles, T. Verhoef\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jole/lzz007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n A previous study of reviewing at the Evolution of Language conferences found effects that suggested that gender bias against female authors was alleviated under double-blind review at EvoLang 11. We update this analysis in two specific ways. First, we add data from the most recent EvoLang 12 conference, providing a comprehensive picture of the conference over five iterations. Like EvoLang 11, EvoLang 12 used double-blind review, but EvoLang 12 showed no significant difference in review scores between genders. We discuss potential explanations for why there was a strong effect in EvoLang 11, which is largely absent in EvoLang 12. These include testing whether readability differs between genders, though we find no evidence to support this. Although gender differences seem to have declined for EvoLang 12, we suggest that double-blind review provides a more equitable evaluation process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Language Evolution\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jole/lzz007\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Language Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

之前在语言进化会议上进行的一项审查研究发现,在EvoLang 11的双盲审查中,对女性作者的性别偏见得到了缓解。我们以两种具体方式更新了这一分析。首先,我们添加了最近EvoLang 12会议的数据,提供了五次迭代会议的全面情况。与EvoLang 11一样,EvoLang 12使用双盲评审,但EvoLang 12中的性别评审得分没有显著差异。我们讨论了为什么EvoLang 11中存在强烈影响的潜在解释,而EvoLang 12中基本上没有这种影响。其中包括测试性别之间的可读性是否不同,尽管我们没有发现任何证据支持这一点。尽管EvoLang 12的性别差异似乎有所下降,但我们建议双盲审查提供了一个更公平的评估过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Double-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences: An update
A previous study of reviewing at the Evolution of Language conferences found effects that suggested that gender bias against female authors was alleviated under double-blind review at EvoLang 11. We update this analysis in two specific ways. First, we add data from the most recent EvoLang 12 conference, providing a comprehensive picture of the conference over five iterations. Like EvoLang 11, EvoLang 12 used double-blind review, but EvoLang 12 showed no significant difference in review scores between genders. We discuss potential explanations for why there was a strong effect in EvoLang 11, which is largely absent in EvoLang 12. These include testing whether readability differs between genders, though we find no evidence to support this. Although gender differences seem to have declined for EvoLang 12, we suggest that double-blind review provides a more equitable evaluation process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Language Evolution
Journal of Language Evolution Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Derivational morphology and suffixing bias on linguistic and nonlinguistic material Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of pitch-accent systems based on accentual class merger: a new method applied to Japanese dialects The evolution of evolutionary linguistics Evolutionary pathways of complexity in gender systems Evolution of Pantomime in Dyadic Interaction. A Motion Capture Study
×
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