Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008
- 183 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCitation analysis Accounting authors Research output Gender differences
JEL ClassificationA11 A19 I23
- British Academy. (2007). Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences. London, United Kingdom: Author.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Harzing, A. W. (2007). The journal quality list. Available on the internet at http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
- 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.
- Hilmer, C., & Hilmer, M. (2007). Women helping women, men helping women? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 97(2), 422–426.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Hull, R. P., & Wright, G. B. (1990). Faculty perceptions of journal quality: An update. Accounting Horizons, 4(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Research Excellence Framework. (2014). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
- Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(3), A14–A16.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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