TY - JOUR
T1 - Mind the (submission) gap
T2 - EPSR gender data and female authors publishing perceptions
AU - Closa, Carlos
AU - Moury, Catherine
AU - Novakova, Zuzana
AU - Qvortrup, Matt
AU - Ribeiro, Beatriz
N1 - UIDB/04627/2020
UIDP/04627/2020
PY - 2020/4/14
Y1 - 2020/4/14
N2 - The publication pattern of EPSR confirms the findings of established scholarship on gender and publishing; women publish less than men (roughly, 30% to 70%). This gap reflects a previous submission gap; i.e., men submit even much more than women do. EPSR editorial process does not show signs of discrimination: single or leading female authors have significantly lower desk rejection rates than their male counterparts in similar configurations. Women though, are underrepresented as peer reviewers and EPSR has taken measures to redress this situation. Looking at women authors perceptions, findings (that cannot be considered representative), are consistent with existing scholarship. Women authors perceive themselves as more perfectionist and more risk adverse, they also perceive that they can dedicate less time to research, and they express mistrust in the blind review process. As a general conclusion, whilst reversing the gender gap requires structural action beyond and before the editorial process, journal editors must consider forms to secure more extensive women inclusion in publications.
AB - The publication pattern of EPSR confirms the findings of established scholarship on gender and publishing; women publish less than men (roughly, 30% to 70%). This gap reflects a previous submission gap; i.e., men submit even much more than women do. EPSR editorial process does not show signs of discrimination: single or leading female authors have significantly lower desk rejection rates than their male counterparts in similar configurations. Women though, are underrepresented as peer reviewers and EPSR has taken measures to redress this situation. Looking at women authors perceptions, findings (that cannot be considered representative), are consistent with existing scholarship. Women authors perceive themselves as more perfectionist and more risk adverse, they also perceive that they can dedicate less time to research, and they express mistrust in the blind review process. As a general conclusion, whilst reversing the gender gap requires structural action beyond and before the editorial process, journal editors must consider forms to secure more extensive women inclusion in publications.
KW - Female reviewers
KW - Gender gap in publications
KW - Political science women authors
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083772141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000526252900004
U2 - 10.1057/s41304-020-00250-5
DO - 10.1057/s41304-020-00250-5
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85083772141
SN - 1680-4333
SP - 428
EP - 442
JO - European Political Science
JF - European Political Science
IS - 19
ER -