Women Working In the Open

Author: April Hathcock

Abstract: In this blog post, April Hathcock discusses diversity, inclusion, and representation in scholarly communication. The post discusses the work left to be done in terms of dismantling sexist and racist under-representation within the profession, but also proffers a collaborative list of women working “in the open.”

Citation: Hathcock, A. (2017, June 20). Women working in the open. In the Open. Retrieved from http://intheopen.net/2017/06/women-working-in-the-open/

Who’s Talking about Scholarly Communication? An Examination of Gender and Behavior on the SCHOLCOMM Listserv

Authors: Clayton Hayes and Heidi Elaine Kelly

Abstract: INTRODUCTION This study analyzes the gender dynamics of the American Library Association’s SCHOLCOMM listserv in order to determine the accuracy of concerns expressed by participants in early 2016 regarding the dominance of male voices on the listserv. METHODS Utilizing the SCHOLCOMM listserv archive, openly available online, the authors analyzed metadata related to individual messages in order to create a comprehensive list of participants, which was then analyzed to determine gender identity. The authors utilized this information to correlate the frequency of new messages and replies sent to the list with the gender identity of participants. RESULTS While men represented 35% of the SCHOLCOMM list’s participants, they contributed over half of the messages sent to the listserv and two-thirds of those sent as replies on existing message threads. DISCUSSION The opinion of several SCHOLCOMM participants that male voices were overrepresented in listserv discussions proved to be true. The gender identity breakdown of those most active on the list may also influence the perceptions and/or behaviors of other listserv participants, however, and should be investigated further. CONCLUSION While this study substantiates the opinion of several listserv participants that male SCHOLCOMM participants account for a disproportionately large amount of listserv discussion, we argue that the dynamics of the listserv can and should be changed in order to better represent the participant population.

Citation: Hayes, C. & Kelly, H.E., (2017). Who’s Talking about Scholarly Communication? An Examination of Gender and Behavior on the SCHOLCOMM Listserv. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2017


Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science

Author: Amy L. Atchison

Abstract: Open-access (OA) advocates have long promoted OA as an egalitarian alternative to traditional subscription-based academic publishing. The argument is simple: OA gives everyone access to high-quality research at no cost. In turn, this should benefit individual researchers by increasing the number of people reading and citing academic articles. As the OA movement gains traction in the academy, scholars are investing considerable research energy to determine whether there is an OA citation advantage—that is, does OA increase an article’s citation counts? Research indicates that it does. Scholars also explored patterns of gender bias in academic publishing and found that women are cited at lower rates in many disciplines. Indeed, in many disciplines, men enjoy a significant and positive gender citation effect (GCE) compared to their female colleagues. This article combines these research areas to determine whether the OA citation advantage varies by gender. Using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) tests, the nonparametric analog to the independent samples T-test, I conclude that OA benefits male and female political scientists at similar rates. Thus, OA negates the gender citation advantage that typically accrues to male political scientists.

Citation: Atchison, Amy, “Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science” (2017). Political Science and International Relations Faculty Publications. 19.


The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly

We’re preceding this post with a short PSA. Today’s International Women’s Strike offers a good opportunity for those of us interested in LIS research and scholarly communication to reflect upon the persistent gender gap in our own field, both in professional practice and in our knowledge production practices. Though we comprise the majority of the profession, women are still paid less than their male peers and assume leadership positions at lower rates. We are also take on unpaid “service” work at higher rates–work like what we do here at The Idealis. That’s why we, too, are striking today, having scheduled this post a few weeks back.

In solidarity,
Stacy, Lily & Nicky
The Idealis

Author: Malin Håkanson

Abstract: Three scholarly core journals of library and information science (LIS) were analyzed with respect to gender of article authors and gender of authors cited in these articles. The share of female contributors to these journals has certainly increased during the studied period, 1980–2000. However, the results of the quantitative citation analysis show puzzling differences concerning female and male authors’ citation practice. There may be a gender bias in LIS publishing, even though female authors have become more numerous. Further studies are needed to uncover the influence of other variables, such as subject content of the articles.

Håkanson, M. (2005). The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly. College & Research Libraries, 66(4). doi:10.5860/crl.66.4.312



Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017

Authors: Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin

Abstract: In this paper we study the implications for conference program committees of adopting single-blind reviewing, in which committee members are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, versus double-blind reviewing, in which this information is not visible to committee members. WSDM 2017, the 10th ACM International ACM Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, performed a controlled experiment in which each paper was reviewed by four committee members. Two of these four reviewers were chosen from a pool of committee members who had access to author information; the other two were chosen from a disjoint pool who did not have access to this information. This information asymmetry persisted through the process of bidding for papers, reviewing papers, and entering scores. Reviewers in the single-blind condition typically bid for 26% more papers, and bid preferentially for papers from top institutions. Once papers were allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers were significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors and top institutions. In each case, the estimated odds multiplier is around $1.5times$, so the result is quite strong. We did not however see differences in bidding or reviewing behavior between single-blind and double-blind reviewers for papers with female authors. We describe our findings in detail and offer some recommendations.

Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D. Heavlin. (2017).  Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017. arxiv