Working Paper: NBER ID: w25967
Authors: David Card; Stefano DellaVigna; Patricia Funk; Nagore Iriberri
Abstract: We study the role of gender in the evaluation of economic research using submissions to four leading journals. We find that referee gender has no effect on the relative assessment of female- versus male-authored papers, suggesting that any differential biases of male referees are negligible. To determine whether referees as a whole impose different standards for female authors, we compare citations for female and male-authored papers, holding constant referee evaluations and other characteristics. We find that female-authored papers receive about 25% more citations than observably similar male-authored papers. Editors largely follow the referees, resulting in a 6 percentage point lower probability of a revise and resubmit verdict for female-authored papers relative to a citation-maximizing benchmark. In their desk rejection decisions, editors treat female authors more favorably, though they still impose a higher bar than would be implied by citation-maximization. We find no differences in the informativeness of female versus male referees, or in the weight that editors place on the recommendations of female versus male referees. We also find no differences in editorial delays for female versus male-authored papers.
Keywords: Gender Bias; Editorial Process; Economic Research
JEL Codes: J16
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| referee gender (J16) | assessment of female vs male-authored papers (J16) |
| female-authored papers (J16) | citations (A14) |
| editorial decisions (Y90) | revise and resubmit probability for female-authored papers (C59) |
| referee evaluations (Z22) | editorial decisions (Y90) |
| gender of authors (J16) | revise and resubmit verdict (Y30) |
| editorial delays (Y60) | gender of authors (J16) |
| editor's decision-making process (D70) | citation outcomes (A14) |