|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz; Juan-José Ganuza; Manu García |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the existence and drivers of gender citation gaps in the five leading journals in economics. Using a comprehensive dataset of 7, 214 articles published between 1999 and 2023, we examine whether female-authored papers are cited more frequently than male-authored ones, and whether this pattern persists after controlling for differences in research topics. We apply Structural Topic Modeling (STM) to abstracts to estimate latent research themes and complement this approach with field classifications based on JEL codes. Our results show that female-authored papers initially display a citation premium—receiving up to 15 log points more citations—but this advantage becomes statistically insignificant once we control for research field composition using either STM topics or JEL codes. These findings suggest that horizontal gender differences in thematic specialization, rather than bias in citation behavior, account for most of the observed citation gap. Our analysis highlights the importance of accounting for field heterogeneity when assessing academic recognition and contributes to ongoing discussions about fairness and diversity in economics publishing. |
| Date: | 2025–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2025-07 |
| By: | Park, Gainbi; Franklin, Rachel; Hardy, Sally; Iammarino, Simona; Poon, Jessie P. H. |
| Abstract: | The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were deep and lasting, and the effects on research and researchers have been widely documented. This paper contributes to this literature through an investigation of the gendered and geographical impacts of the pandemic on the five Regional Studies Association (RSA) journals. With the cooperation of Taylor & Francis, the RSA’s journal publisher, we generate a database of manuscripts submitted between January 2018 and December 2022. Employing gender-estimating algorithms and geographical locations of lead authors, we explore overall submission patterns over this five-year period, as well as trends in final editorial decisions by authorship characteristics, gender and geography. We find evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily depressed manuscript submissions, with heterogeneous effects depending on journal, continent and composition of authorship team. We also find strong evidence of persistent gender disparities in submission and acceptance rates that predate the pandemic, and therefore cannot be attributed solely to its effects. These findings reinforce the importance of identifying and effectively tackling persistent inequalities in academic publishing, and highlight that further action may be required in order to ensure equity and inclusivity in academic and research practices. |
| Keywords: | Covid-19; collaboration; gender disparities; publication; research productivity |
| JEL: | I23 J16 |
| Date: | 2025–05–12 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:128143 |
| By: | Slichter, David (Binghamton University, New York); Tran, Nhan (University of Pittsburgh) |
| Abstract: | Are estimates typically closer to the true parameter value when those estimates are published in highly-ranked economics journals? Using 14, 387 published estimates from 24 large literatures, we find that, within literatures, the mean and variance of parameter estimates have little or no correlation with journal rank. Therefore, regardless of what the true parameter value is that a literature is attempting to estimate, it cannot be that estimates in higher-ranked journals are on average noticeably closer to it. We discuss possible explanations and implications. |
| Keywords: | meta-analysis, scientific methods, science of science |
| JEL: | C13 C18 A11 |
| Date: | 2025–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17960 |
| By: | Amarendra Sharma |
| Abstract: | This paper explores an innovative financial concept--Academic Research Output Futures (AROFs)--which aim to bring the tools of market-based finance into the realm of academic research. At the heart of this idea lies a cash-settled futures contract tethered to a composite Research Output Index (ROI), a metric designed to quantify the research productivity of universities and research institutions. By allowing investors to take positions--speculative or hedging--on the projected trajectory of academic performance, AROFs open the door to a fundamentally new funding model. For universities, this could mean access to capital markets without relying solely on grants, donations, or government subsidies. Accompanying these futures are Academic Research Output Options (AROOs), providing a layer of strategic nuance and risk control, much like options in traditional financial markets. The paper delves into the architecture of the ROI, the mechanics of the derivative instruments, regulatory and legal challenges, and the broader strategic consequences of such a framework. If realized, this model could represent a significant departure from conventional research funding approaches--one that aligns scholarly output with financial incentives in ways both promising and provocative. |
| Date: | 2025–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2505.20492 |
| By: | Laskaridis, Christina |
| Abstract: | While there has been no shortage of recent work that has tried to understand the power of economists and prevalence of economic mode of thinking, far less has been said about the instances where economists were unable to exert influence. While power struggles between economists have most often been the subject of investigation within the academe, the struggle for influence for different types of economic expertise within policy institutions is understudied. This paper examines the different understandings of debt repayment prospects that developed in the World Bank during its first twenty years of operation. The organisation’s internal structure reflected conflicts between different departments that left economists in the research department in the weaker position. Economists’ epistemic authority is intimately related to the organisation of expertise and the alignment to management’s objectives, as well as formality of economists’ tools. |
| Keywords: | World Bank; economic expertise; sovereign debt; role of economics; role of economists |
| JEL: | F3 G3 J1 |
| Date: | 2025–04–14 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:127951 |
| By: | Lepinteur, Anthony (University of Luxembourg); Nistico, Roberto (University of Naples Federico II) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines whether access to administrative data mitigates or reinforces inequalities in academic careers. We study the VisitINPS program, which grants researchers access to rich administrative records, and construct a longitudinal dataset covering the quasi-universe of applicants. Using a Two-Way Fixed Effects model complemented by a Regression Discontinuity Design, we find that administrative data access improves research visibility and career progression but does not increase overall publication volume. However, these gains are unequal and our findings suggest that administrative data access may magnify, rather than reduce, existing disparities in the academic economics community. |
| Keywords: | two-way fixed-effects, career progression, administrative data |
| JEL: | J01 J60 J40 |
| Date: | 2025–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17906 |