Scientometrics

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 1687–1701 | Cite as

Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008

Article
  • 169 Downloads

Abstract

Women academics publish less frequently than men, they may also be subject to discrimination and gender bias in men dominated disciplines. Citation metrics are advocated by assessment bodies and advisory agencies to standardise research assessment. We focus on the metrics suggested for assessment and newer metrics that capture additional dimensions of performance. Our data comes from a sample of accounting authors from 1958 to 2008. The results suggest that citation metrics that accommodate excess citations, such as the e-index, tend to treat women researchers more favourably, and offer an evaluation of research performance that is better able to reflect the type of research output profile that is more typical for women.

Keywords

Citation analysis Accounting authors Research output Gender differences 

JEL Classification

A11 A19 I23 

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, N., & Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballas, A., & Theoharakis, V. (2003). Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 619–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbezat, D. A. (2006). Gender differences in research patterns amongst Phd economists. Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bline, D. M. (2007). A commentary on ‘publish or perish: Is this really a viable set of options? Accounting Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1999). The Matthew Index—concentration patterns and Matthew core journals. Scientometrics, 44(3), 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Der Stede, Van, Wim, A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journal in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. British Academy. (2007). Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences. London, United Kingdom: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, L. D. (2003). Ranking journals using social science research network downloads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals and articles on contemporary accounting research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, C. C., Chan, C. C., Seow, G. S., & Tam, K. (2009). Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 875–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., & Chang, Y. C. (2013). Ranking of finance journals: some google scholar citation perspectives. Journal of Empirical Finance, 21(March), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, K. C., Chang, C. C., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, T. F. (2012). An analysis of the accounting and finance research productivity in Australia and New Zealand in 1991–2010. Accounting and Finance, 52(1), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, K. C., Chen, C. R., & Cheng, L. T. W. (2005). Ranking research productivity in accounting for Asia-Pacific universities. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 24(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, K. C., & Liano, K. (2009). Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting. Accounting and Finance, 49(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2007). Evaluating universities using simple scientometric research-output metrics: Total citation counts per university for a retrospective seven-year rolling sample. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 555–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dolan, C. (2007). Feasibility study: The evaluation and benchmarking of humanities research in Europe, Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA). Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engemann, K. M., & Wall, H. J. (2009). A journal ranking for the ambitious economist. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review, 91(3), 127–140.Google Scholar
  21. Ferber, M. A., & Brun, M. (2011). The gender gap in citations: Does it persist? Feminist Economics, 17(1), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. A. (2010). Analysis of the Hirsch index’s operational properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 494–504.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Haley, M. R. (2013). Rank variability of the publish or perish metrics for economics and finance journals. Applied Economics Letters, 20(9), 830–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harzing, A. W. (2007). The journal quality list. Available on the internet at http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
  25. Heck, J. L. (2009). Most prolific authors in the accounting literature over the past half-century: 1959–2008. SSRN Working paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1344072.
  26. Hilmer, C., & Hilmer, M. (2007). Women helping women, men helping women? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 97(2), 422–426.Google Scholar
  27. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (46), 16569–16572. http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full.
  28. Hull, R. P., & Wright, G. B. (1990). Faculty perceptions of journal quality: An update. Accounting Horizons, 4(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
  29. Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, P. M., Reckers, P. M., & Solomon, L. (2002). Evolving research benchmarks. Advances in Accounting, 19, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kimery, K. M., Mellon, M. J., & Rinehart, S. M. (2004). Publishing in the accounting journals: Is there a gender bias? Journal of Business and Economics Research, 2(4), 27–33.Google Scholar
  32. Krogstad, J., & Smith, G. (2003). Assessing the influence of auditing: A journal of practice and theory 1985–1999. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22(1), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, T. H., Yap, C. S., Lim, Y. M., & Tam, C. L. (2012). Accounting researchers in Asia Pacific: A study on publication productivity and citation analysis. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(1), 132–150.Google Scholar
  34. Liu, Y., & Rousseau, R. (2009). Properties of Hirsch-type indices: The case of library classification categories. Scientometrics, 79(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Louis, F.C., & Reed, G. (2013). The current state and recommendations for meaningful academic research metrics among American research universities. A Report of the Research Metrics Working Group, US Research Universities Futures Consortium.Google Scholar
  36. Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: Results of web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell, S. M., Lange, S., & Brus, H. (2013). Gendered citation patterns in international relations journals. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Research Excellence Framework. (2014). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2009). Measuring the impact of accounting journal using google scholar and g-index. The British Accounting Review, 41(4), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(3), A14–A16.Google Scholar
  43. Seglen, P. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh, G., Haddad, K. M., & Chow, C. W. (2007). Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, S. D. (2004). Is an article in a top journal a top article? Financial Management, 33(4), 133–149.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Stammerjohan, W. W., & Hall, S. C. (2002). Evaluation of doctoral programs in accounting: An examination of placement. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UK Office of Science and Technology. (2006). Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: Next steps. London: UK Office of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  48. Wakefield, R. (2008). Networks of accounting research—a citation-based structural and network analysis. British Accounting Review, 40(3), 228–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., et al. (2015). The metric tide—report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. London: Higher Education Funding Council of England. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE, 4(5), 1–4.Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, C. T. (2010). Relationship of the h-index, g-index and e-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 625–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash University MalaysiaBandar SunwayMalaysia

Personalised recommendations