| 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. |