Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Academic Publishing
• Gender Studies

Background:

• Women constitute the majority of psychologists but are underrepresented in senior academic positions.
• Existing research suggests potential gender bias in academic decision-making, particularly in high-stakes situations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate gender bias in academic publishing within personality and social psychology.
• To examine the influence of editor gender on author gender in high-prominence special issues compared to regular issues.

Main Methods:

• Bibliometric analysis of 1911 articles from five prominent psychology journals published in the 21st century.
• Comparison of gender of editors and authors in special issues versus adjacent regular issues.
• Analysis focused on 93 sets of special and regular issues.

Main Results:

• A significant pattern emerged in special issues: a higher number of male editors correlated with a higher proportion of male first and co-authors.
• This association between male editors and male authors was not observed in regular issues.
• The findings indicate a potential gender-based bias in the selection and publication of research in high-impact academic venues.

Conclusions:

• Gender bias in academic publishing may be perpetuated through editorial decision-making processes.
• Editorial policies in leading psychology journals may require revision to address and mitigate gender disparities.
• Promoting equitable representation in scientific authorship is crucial for academic advancement.