论文标题
科学编辑中的性别不平等和自出版模式
Gender inequality and self-publication patterns among scientific editors
论文作者
论文摘要
学术出版是记录和传播科学发现的主要媒介。日常操作的核心是编辑委员会。尽管他们的活动和招募通常对外部观察者来说是不透明的,但他们在促进公平评估和性别平价方面发挥了至关重要的作用。关于性别不平等的文献缺乏女性作为编辑和研究活性科学家之间的联系,因此缺少这两个学术角色的性别平衡之间的比较。关于社论公平性的文献类似地,缺乏有关编辑在活跃的研究引起的感兴趣冲突的纵向研究,这激发了他们加快论文的发表。我们使用103,000名编辑,2.4亿作者和2.2亿个出版物的数据集填补了这些空白,涵盖了50年和15个学科。这个独特的数据集使我们能够将女性编辑的比例与任何给定年份或纪律的女性科学家的比例进行比较。尽管妇女在科学方面的人数不足(26%),但在编辑中甚至更大(14%)和总统编辑(8%)中的编辑中更为如此。缺乏长期出版职业的妇女解释了编辑之间的性别差距,但没有主编,这表明其他因素可能在起作用。我们的数据集还允许我们研究编辑的自我出版模式,表明其中8%的速度是他们在编辑职位开始后不久在自己的日记中发布的速度的两倍,并且这种行为在期刊上突出了主持人自我出版的期刊。最后,男人比女性更有可能参与这种行为。
Academic publishing is the principal medium of documenting and disseminating scientific discoveries. At the heart of its daily operations are the editorial boards. Despite their activities and recruitment often being opaque to outside observers, they play a crucial role in promoting fair evaluations and gender parity. Literature on gender inequality lacks the connection between women as editors and as research-active scientists, thereby missing the comparison between the gender balances in these two academic roles. Literature on editorial fairness similarly lacks longitudinal studies on the conflicts of interest arising from editors being research active, which motivates them to expedite the publication of their papers. We fill these gaps using a dataset of 103,000 editors, 240 million authors, and 220 million publications spanning five decades and 15 disciplines. This unique dataset allows us to compare the proportion of female editors to that of female scientists in any given year or discipline. Although women are already underrepresented in science (26%), they are even more so among editors (14%) and editors-in-chief (8%); the lack of women with long-enough publishing careers explains the gender gap among editors, but not editors-in-chief, suggesting that other factors may be at play. Our dataset also allows us to study the self-publication patterns of editors, revealing that 8% of them double the rate at which they publish in their own journal soon after the editorship starts, and this behavior is accentuated in journals where the editors-in-chief self-publish excessively. Finally, men are more likely to engage in this behaviour than women.