|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Chari, Anusha (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NBER); Goldsmith-Pinkham, Paul (Federal Reserve Bank of New York) |
| Abstract: | We document the representation of female economists on the conference programs at the NBER Summer Institute from 2001 to 2016. Over the 2013-16 period, women made up 20.6 percent of all authors on scheduled papers. However, there was large dispersion across programs, with the share of female authors ranging from 7.3 percent to 47.7 percent. While the average share of women rose slightly—from 18.5 percent in 2001-04—a persistent gap between the finance, macroeconomics, and microeconomics subfields remains, with women representing 14.4 percent of authors in finance, 16.3 percent of authors in macroeconomics, and 25.9 percent of authors in microeconomics. We examine three channels potentially affecting female representation. First, using anonymized data on submissions, we show that the rate of paper acceptance for women is statistically indistinguishable from that of men. Second, we find that the share of female authors is comparable to the share of women among all tenure-track professors, but is 10 percentage points lower than the share of women among assistant professors. Finally, within conference programs, we find that when a woman organizes the program, the share of female authors and discussants is higher. |
| Keywords: | gender; economics; representation |
| JEL: | A11 A14 J10 J16 |
| Date: | 2017–10–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fip:fednsr:825&r=sog |
| By: | Engelbert Stockhammer (Kingston University); Quirin Dammerer; Sukriti Kapur |
| Abstract: | The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the main research assessment for universities in the UK. It informs university league tables and the allocation of government research funding. This paper analyses the evaluations of the REF 2014 for Economics, Business, Politics and History. We analyse, first, from which journals, articles have been submitted; second, to what extent journal ratings and impact factors predict the REF´s evaluations; third, how many articles from heterodox economics journals have been submitted. We find that a small group of journals dominate the outputs submitted. Journal ratings and impact factors explain 86 to 89% of the variation in the output evaluations for Economics. These values are lower but still substantial for other disciplines. Few papers from heterodox economics journals were submitted to Economics. Overall, the REF in its present form marginalises heterodox economics, pushes it out of the discipline and endangers pluralism in economics research. |
| Keywords: | research assessment, Research Excellence Framework, journal impact factors, journal ratings, pluralism, heterodox economics |
| JEL: | A14 A20 B50 |
| Date: | 2017–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pke:wpaper:pkwp1715&r=sog |
| By: | Bransch, Felix (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg); Kvasnicka, Michael (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg) |
| Abstract: | Using data on articles published in the top-five economic journals in the period 1991 to 2010, we explore whether the gender composition of editorial boards is related to the publishing success of female authors and to the quality of articles that get published. Our results show that female editors reduce, rather than increase, the share of articles that are (co-)authored by females. We also find evidence that female editors benefit article quality at low levels of representation on editorial boards, but harm article quality at higher levels. Several robustness checks corroborate these findings. Our results are broadly consistent with existing evidence on the behavior of gender-mixed hiring committees and of relevance for gender equality policy. |
| Keywords: | gender bias, citations, journals, editors |
| JEL: | A14 J16 J71 |
| Date: | 2017–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp11089&r=sog |
| By: | Frei, Irina (RWTH Aachen University); Grund, Christian (RWTH Aachen University) |
| Abstract: | Despite the ongoing public debate about precarious working conditions in academia, there is only little evidence on working hours and overtime work for the group of (non-tenured) junior academics. By using unique longitudinal survey data on the occupational situation and careers of doctoral students and doctorate holders in STEM fields in Germany, we explore potential antecedents of overtime. We find that overtime hours are less pronounced among firm employees holding a doctorate and among postdocs than they are among doctoral students. This result holds in the cross-section and also when examining status changes (from doctoral student to postdoc or to firm employee holding a doctorate) in difference-in-differences estimations. In contrast to firm employees, overtime hours are considerably positively associated with part-time contracts for doctoral students. Furthermore, our results reveal that individuals' career orientation is positively associated with extra hours. In contrast, individuals with family responsibilities and a stronger preference for leisure time spend significantly fewer hours at work. |
| Keywords: | working time, overtime, part-time employment, academia |
| JEL: | I23 J22 M51 |
| Date: | 2017–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp11065&r=sog |
| By: | Gary A. Hoover; Christian Hopp |
| Abstract: | This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct elicited from a sample of 1,215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). Despite these findings, respondents put a fair deal of trust in the replicability and robustness of findings being published. A sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies but sees value in replication studies to ensure credibility in empirical research. |
| Keywords: | scientific misconduct, data fabrication, data misrepresentation, ethics |
| JEL: | K30 A11 |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6611&r=sog |