View in EDS

Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis.
Authors: Formanowicz, Magdalena1 (AUTHOR) magda.formanowicz@gmail.com, Witkowska, Marta1 (AUTHOR), Hryniszak, Weronika1 (AUTHOR), Jakubik, Zuzanna1 (AUTHOR), Cisłak, Aleksandra1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Scientometrics. Apr2023, Vol. 128 Issue 4, p2283-2299. 17p.
Subjects: Bibliometrics, Sex discrimination, Social psychology, Editorial policies, Psychologists
Abstract: Even though the majority of psychologists are women, they are outnumbered by men in senior academic ranks. One reason for this representation bias in academia is that men favor other men in decision-making, especially when the stakes are high. We tested the possibility of such bias in a bibliometric analysis, in which we coded editors' and authors' gender in regular and special issues, the latter considered of higher scientific prominence. We examined all special issues from five prominent scientific outlets in the fields of personality and social psychology published in the twenty-first century. Altogether, we analyzed 1911 articles nested in 93 sets comprising a special issue and a neighboring regular issue treated as a control condition. For articles published in special (but not regular) issues, when there were more men editors, more men first-authored and co-authored the work. This pattern suggests how gender bias can be perpetuated within academia and calls for revising the editorial policies of leading psychology journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Scientometrics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Even though the majority of psychologists are women, they are outnumbered by men in senior academic ranks. One reason for this representation bias in academia is that men favor other men in decision-making, especially when the stakes are high. We tested the possibility of such bias in a bibliometric analysis, in which we coded editors' and authors' gender in regular and special issues, the latter considered of higher scientific prominence. We examined all special issues from five prominent scientific outlets in the fields of personality and social psychology published in the twenty-first century. Altogether, we analyzed 1911 articles nested in 93 sets comprising a special issue and a neighboring regular issue treated as a control condition. For articles published in special (but not regular) issues, when there were more men editors, more men first-authored and co-authored the work. This pattern suggests how gender bias can be perpetuated within academia and calls for revising the editorial policies of leading psychology journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01389130
DOI:10.1007/s11192-023-04639-z