Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 6, pp 1441–1464 | Cite as

New data on the representation of women in philosophy journals: 2004–2015

  • Isaac Wilhelm
  • Sherri Lynn ConklinEmail author
  • Nicole Hassoun


This paper presents new data on the representation of women who publish in 25 top philosophy journals as ranked by the Philosophical Gourmet Report (2015) for the years 2004, 2014, and 2015. It also provides a new analysis of Schwitzgebel’s 1955–2015 journal data ( The paper makes four points while providing an overview of the current state of women authors in philosophy. In all years and for all journals, the percentage of female authors was extremely low, in the range of 14–16%. The percentage of women authors is less than the percentage of women faculty in different ranks and at different kinds of institutions. In addition, there is great variation across individual journals, and the discrepancy between women authors and women faculty appears to be different in different subfields. Interestingly, journals which do not practice anonymous review seem to have a higher percentage of women authors than journals which practice double anonymous or triple anonymous review. This paper also argues that we need more data on academic publishing to better understand whether this can explain why there are so few full-time female faculty in philosophy, since full-time hiring and tenuring practices presumably depend on a candidate’s academic publishing.


Diversity Philosophy journals Proportions by sub-discipline Influence of review type 



We are indebted support provided by the Demographics in Philosophy Project advisory board, with special thanks to Julie Van Camp, Ruth Chang, Tom Dougherty, Edouard Machery, and Eric Schwitzgebel for providing feedback on early drafts. Thanks also to Ben Bronner, Mark Fortney, and Morgan Thompson for helping to collect the data. Finally, we thank Irina Artamonova, Lucio Esposito, Shen-yi Liao, anonymous referees, as well as the editors of Philosophical Studies, for comments on later drafts.


  1. Ahmed, S. (2013). Making feminist points. Feministkilljoys: Blog. Available from 20 Jan 2017.
  2. Arvan, M. (2015). Philosophers don’t read and cite enough (guest post by Marcus Arvan). Daily Nous: Blog. Available from 6 June 2016.
  3. Beebee, H., & Saul, J. (2011). Women in philosophy in the UK. A Report by the British Philosophical Association and the Society for Women in Philosophy UK. Joint BPA/SWIP Committee for Women in Philosophy. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  4. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies, 170(3), 465–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brogaard, B. (2012). The journal reviewing process isn’t anonymous. Did you really think it was? Think again! New APPS: Blog. Available from 12 Jan 2017.
  7. Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calhoun, C. (2009). The undergraduate pipeline problem. Hypatia, 24(2), 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, J., Kim, M., & Liu, Q. (2016). Do female professors survive the 19th-century tenure system? Evidence from the Economics Ph.D. Class of 2008. Available at SSRN>1, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2885951. 05 Jan 2017.
  10. Critical Ethnic Studies Journal. (2015). Citation practices. Available from 31 Jan 2017.
  11. De Cruz, H. (2014a). Anonymous reviewing is not enough to counter implicit bias, so what can we do to mitigate it? New APPS: Blog. 28 July 2016.
  12. De Cruz, H. (2014b). A bechdel test for philosophy papers. New APPS: Blog. Available from 28 July 2016.
  13. Dodds, S., & Goddard, E. (2013). Not just a pipeline problem: improving women’s participation in philosophy in Australia. In K. Hutchison & F. Jenkins (Eds.), Women in philosophy: What needs to change? (pp. 143–163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dotson, K. (2012). How is this paper philosophy? Comparative Philosophy, 3(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  15. Dougherty, T., Baron, S., & Miller, K. (2015). Female under-representation among philosophy majors: A map of the hypotheses and a survey of the evidence. Feminist Philosophical Quarterly 1(1).
  16. Dunleavy, P. (2014). Poor citation practices are a form of academic self-harm in the humanities and social sciences. Writing For Research: Blog. Available from 16 Jan 2017.
  17. Feise, R. J. (2002). Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Medical Research Methodology. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-2-8.Google Scholar
  18. Goddard, E. (2008). Improving the participation of women in the philosophy profession. Report C: Students by Gender in Philosophy Programs in Australian Universities. Australasian Association of Philosophy. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  19. Haslanger, S. (2008). Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia, 23(2), 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haslanger, S. (2013). Survey of earned doctorates % women. Data on Women in Philosophy: Website APA Committee on the Status of Women. Available from 12 Jan 2015.
  21. Hassoun, N., & Conklin, S. (2015) Data on women in philosophy. Available from 19 April 2017.
  22. Healy, K. (2013). Lewis and the women. Kieran Healy: Blog. Available from 3 Dec 2015.
  23. Healy, K. (2015). Gender and citation in four general-interest philosophy journals, 19932013. Kieran Healy: Blog. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  24. Huber, F., & Weisberg, J. (2014). Introducing Ergo. Ergo. doi: 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0001.000.Google Scholar
  25. Irvin, S. (2014). Diversity in aesthetics publishing. Aesthetics for Birds: Blog. Available from 4 Aug 2016.
  26. Jennings, C. D. (2014a). Job placement 20112014: Overview on gender. New APPS: Blog. Available from 2 Dec 2015.
  27. Jennings, C. D. (2014b). Job placement 20112014: Overview on AOS. New APPS: Blog. Available from December 02, 2015.
  28. Jennings, C. D. (2015a). An empirical look at gender and research specialization. Invited colloquium presentation for the Metaphilosophy & Diversity Colloquium at Boston University: March 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Jennings, C. D. (2015b). Tracking the job market: A start. New APPS: Blog. Available from 2 Dec 2015.
  30. Jennings, C. D., Kyrilov, A., Cobb, P., Vlasits, J., Vinson, D. W., Montes, E., & Franco, C. (2015). Academic placement data and analysis: 2015 final report. New APPS: Blog. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  31. Journal of the American Philosophical Association [JAPA]. (2015). Instructions for contributors. Revised 16 June 2015. Available from 8 Aug 2016.
  32. Junn, J. (2012). Analysis of data on tenure at USC Dornsife. Memo to USC Dornsife faculty council. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  33. Krishnamurthy, M. (2014). The underrepresentation of women in elite ethics journals: To quota or not to quota? Available from 15 July 2016.
  34. Lee, C. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Philosophy journal practices and opportunities for bias. APA Newsletters: Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, 10(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
  35. Leiter, B. (2015). The top 20 “general” philosophy journals, 2015. Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog. Available from 7 June 2016.
  36. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596(1), 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Midsummer Philosophy Workshop. (2016). Review policies. Available from
  38. Norlock, K. (2006). Women in the profession: A report to the CSW. Data on Women in Philosophy. APA Committee on the Status of Women. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  39. Norlock, K. (2011). Update. Data on Women in Philosophy. APA Committee on the Status of Women. Available from 30 Nov 2015.
  40. Norlock, K. (2014). Gender ratios of papers published in ethics and the journal of moral philosophy. New APPS: Blog. Available from 12 Dec 2015.
  41. O’Neill, P. G., & Sachis, P. N. (1994). The importance of refereed publications in tenure and promotion decisions: A Canadian study. Higher Education, 28(4), 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paxton, M., Figdor, C., & Tiberius, V. (2012). Quantifying the gender gap: An empirical study of the under-representation of women in philosophy. Hypatia, 27(4), 949–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Philosophical Review. (2016). Philosophical review editorial policies for authors. The Philosophical Review. 12 Jan 2017.
  44. Rosenblatt, A., & Kirk, S. A. (1981). Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. Journal of Social Service Research, 3(4), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sanz-Martín, M., Pitt, K. A., Condon, R. H., Lucas, C. H., Novaes de Santana, C., & Duarte, C. M. (2016). Flawed citation practices facilitate the unsubstantiated perception of a global trend toward increased jellyfish blooms. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25, 1039–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saul, J. (2012). Ranking exercises in philosophy and implicit bias. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(3), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwitzgebel, E. (2014a). Citation of women and minorities in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Blog post at The Splintered Mind. Available from
  49. Schwitzgebel, E. (2014b). The 267 most-cited authors in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The Splintered Mind: Underblog 7 August 2015. Available from
  50. Schwitzgebel, E. (2015a). How prominently is women’s philosophical work discussed? One empirical measure. The Splintered Mind: Blog. Available from 4 Aug 2016.
  51. Schwitzgebel, E. (2015b). Only 13% of authors in five leading philosophy journals are women. The Splintered Mind: Blog. Available from 18 Dec 2015.
  52. Sugimoto, C., Lariviere, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., & Cronin, B. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, M., Adleberg, T., Sims, S., & Nahmias, E. (2016). Why do women leave philosophy? Surveying Students at the Introductory Level. Philosopher’s Imprint, 16(6), 1–36.Google Scholar
  54. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Van Camp, J. (2004). Tenured/tenure-track faculty women at 98 U.S. doctoral programs in philosophy. Website. Available from 1 Jan 2015.
  56. Weinberg, J. (2014). Making philosophy journal statistics publicly available. Blog post at The Daily Nous. Available from 12 Jan 2017.
  57. West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isaac Wilhelm
    • 1
  • Sherri Lynn Conklin
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nicole Hassoun
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Hope and Optimism ProjectCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophySUNY BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations