ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Fulya Ersoy, Loyola Marymount University; Jennifer Pate, Loyola Marymount University

Version: View help for Version V4

Name	File Type	Size	Last Modified
Figures			03/09/2023 02:36:PM
Tables			03/09/2023 02:37:PM

Project Description

Summary:

This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.

Abstract of the paper:

How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).

Scope of Project

Subject Terms: blind review; bias; institution; gender; publication ; experiment

JEL Classification:
      A14 Sociology of Economics
      I23 Higher Education; Research Institutions
      J16 Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

Manuscript Number: ECIN-Dec-2021-0660

Methodology

Response Rate: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment.

Sampling:

To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.

We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.

Collection Mode(s): web-based survey

Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).

Weights: no weights are used.

Unit(s) of Observation: individuals

Related Publications

Download this project

Published Versions

V4 [2023-03-10]

Export Metadata

Dublin Core

DDI 2.5

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.