Replication Data for: The Gender Publication Gap Revisited: Evidence from the International Political Science Review

Since the 1990s, there is consensus in the literature of a submission and publication gap in favor of men. Important research in the intervening years has explored the many reasons for this output gap: imbalanced administrative workloads, bias in top journals against female dominated subfields and methodological approaches and lower confidence levels among women, sometimes known as the “Matthew effect”. But in the intervening period, there has been a notable emphasis on recruiting more women into academia and the importance of publishing for career development has intensified. Some journal case studies have highlighted a growth in output by female academics but show that men are still over-represented. We add to the emerging body of work that shows the gender gap has diminished or even vanished using a case study of the International Political Science Review (IPSR). We present data on submissions and acceptances by gender and root our comparisons in the gender balance of the departments of submitting authors. The results are clear, for IPSR, the gender gap has closed and women now publish on a par with male colleagues in their departments.

自20世纪90年代起，学界已达成共识，认为存在一项倾向于男性的投稿与发表差距。在此期间的多项重要研究已探索了造成这一产出差距的诸多成因：行政工作量分配失衡、顶级期刊对女性主导的细分研究领域与研究方法存在偏见，以及女性群体自信心水平偏低——这一现象有时被称为“马太效应（Matthew effect）”。但在此阶段，学界显著强化了吸纳更多女性进入学术领域的工作，且发表成果对学术职业发展的重要性也愈发凸显。多项期刊案例研究显示，女性学者的学术产出有所增长，但男性作者的占比仍偏高。本研究以《国际政治科学评论》（International Political Science Review, IPSR）为案例对象，为日益增多的相关研究成果提供补充证据——这些研究均表明，投稿与发表的性别差距已有所缩小，甚至完全消失。我们呈现了按性别分类的投稿与录用数据，并以投稿作者所在院系的性别构成作为对比分析的基准。研究结果清晰表明：就《国际政治科学评论》而言，其投稿与发表的性别差距已完全弥合，如今女性学者的发表成果与所在院系的男性同行不相伯仲。