nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2020‒05‒25
three papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Ph.D. research output in STEM: the role of gender and race in supervision By Rossello, Giulia; Cowan, Robin; Mairesse, Jacques
  2. Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings By Cristina Blanco-Perez; Abel Brodeur
  3. Does Economics Make You Sexist? By Valentina A. Paredes; M. Daniele Paserman; Francisco Pino

  1. By: Rossello, Giulia (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University); Cowan, Robin (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University, BETA, Universite de Strasbourg, IUF Descartes, and CREST, Stellenbosch University.); Mairesse, Jacques (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University, CREST-ENSAE, and NBER)
    Abstract: We study whether student-advisor gender and race couples matter for publication productivity of Ph.D. students in South Africa. We consider the sample of all Ph.D.s in STEM graduating between 2000 and 2014, after the recent systematic introduction of doctoral programs in this country. We investigate the joint effects of gender and race for the whole sample and looking separately at the sub-samples of (1) whitewhite; (2) black-black; and (3) black-white student-advisor couples. We find early career productivity differences: while female students publish on average 10% to 20% fewer articles than males, this is true mainly for female students working with a male advisor, not for those working with a female one. These disparities are similar, though more pronounced, when looking at the joint effects of gender and race for the white-white and black-black student-advisor pairs. We also explore whether publication productivity differences change significantly for students with a high, medium, or low “productivity-profile†, and find that they are U-shaped. Female students with a high (or low) “productivity-profile†studying with female advisors are as productive than male students with a high (or low) “productivity-profile†studying with male advisors.
    Keywords: Gender and race, Student Advisor, South Africa, Doctoral research, research productivity, Role models
    JEL: A14 I23 I24 J15 J16 J24 O32
    Date: 2020–05–15
  2. By: Cristina Blanco-Perez; Abel Brodeur
    Abstract: In February 2015, the editors of eight health economics journals sent out an editorial statement which aims to reduce the extent of specification searching and reminds referees to accept studies that: "have potential scientific and publication merit regardless of whether such studies' empirical findings do or do not reject null hypotheses". Guided by a pre-analysis, we test whether the editorial statement decreased the extent of publication bias. Our differences-in-differences estimates suggest that the statement decreased the proportion of tests rejecting the null hypothesis by 18 percentage points. Our findings suggest that incentives may be aligned to promote more transparent research.
    Keywords: publication bias, specification searching, pre-analysis plan, research in economics, incentives to publish
    JEL: A11 C13 C44 I10
    Date: 2019–08
  3. By: Valentina A. Paredes; M. Daniele Paserman; Francisco Pino
    Abstract: Recent research has highlighted unequal treatment for women in academic economics along several different dimensions, including promotion, hiring, credit for co-authorship, and standards for publication in professional journals. Can the source of these differences lie in biases against women that are pervasive in the discipline, even among students in the earliest stages of their training? In this paper, we provide evidence on the importance of explicit and implicit biases against women among students in economics relative to other fields. We conducted a large scale survey among undergraduate students in Chilean universities, among both entering first-year students and students in years 2 and above. On a wide battery of measures, economics students are more biased than students in other fields. Economics students are somewhat more biased already upon entry, before exposure to any economics classes. The gap is more pronounced among students in years 2 and above, in particular for male students. We also find an increase in bias in a sample of students that we follow longitudinally. Differences in political ideology explain essentially all the gap at entry, but none of the increase in the gap with exposure. Exposure to female students and faculty attenuates some of the bias.
    JEL: A13 A14 A22 J16 J71
    Date: 2020–05

This nep-sog issue is ©2020 by Jonas Holmström. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.