This paper explores the relationship between gender and authorship in conference presentations and publications as a lens to examine current disciplinary sociopolitics and the relative contributions of men and women in California archaeology. I contextualize this analysis within a broader comparison to other regions, including Southeastern archaeology as well as the North American archaeology community at large. I also examine how occupational affiliation in different sectors of archaeology (including academic, agency, museums, private sector/CRM, and other affiliations) bears on publishing trends. An evaluation of publishing trends serves as a means to investigate academic merit and visibility, along with the production and validation of knowledge in California archaeology and beyond. Despite growing parity in the numbers of women represented in professional organizations and presenting research at regional and national conferences, disparities remain with respect to publication in peer-reviewed journals, including in Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, California Archaeology, Southeastern Archaeology, and American Antiquity. I explore possible reasons for these disparities, including links to occupational affiliation, and conclude with some recommendations for change.

Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate pa...

This paper explores the relationship between gender identity and patterns of authorship in peer-reviewed journals as a lens for examining gendered knowledge production and the current status and visibility of men and women in American archaeology. Drawing on feminist theory and the feminist critique of science, I examine how gender imbalance and a lack of diversity continue to affect the work that archaeologists produce. The evaluation of publishing trends serves as a means to investigate knowledge valuation/validation in archaeology and lends insight into the control over archaeological narratives. Analysis of publication rates from 1990–2013 in a number of prestigious archaeology research journals (including American Antiquity) as well as smaller-scale regional journals reveals that strong gender differences persist in one of the major ways that data are disseminated to the American archaeological community. I suggest that these patterns are likely a result of authorial behavior, rather than editorial or reviewer bias, and conclude with a discussion of future directions for practitioners to pursue research on gender equity in the discipline.

Creating interdisciplinary dialog in the field of socio-economics cannot be separated from the social diversity among scholarly voices within its community. In marking the 20th anniversary year of Socio-Economic Review (SER), this article examines the role of gender among authors and reviewers in SER. Our findings show that women remain underrepresented in terms of authorship and reviewing. While no gender differences exist in overall acceptance rates for submitted papers, a substantial gender gap exists in the number of submissions. Our analysis also highlights how the persistence of gender segregation is related to the predominance of male-only author teams and male-dominated research topics. The article concludes with suggestions for further research and a discussion on gender disparities in socio-economics and other social science fields.

It is often argued that female researchers publish on average less than male researchers do, but male and female authored papers have an equal impact. In this paper we try to better understand this phenomenon by (i) comparing the share of male and female researchers within different productivity classes, and (ii) by comparing productivity whereas controlling for a series of relevant covariates. The study is based on a disambiguated Swedish author dataset, consisting of 47,000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008-2011 with citations until 2015. As the analysis shows, in order to have impact quantity does make a difference for male and female researchers alike—but women are vastly underrepresented in the group of most productive researchers. We discuss and test several possible explanations of this finding, using a data on personal characteristics from several Swedish universities. Gender differences in age, authorship position, and academic rank do explain quite a part of the productivity differences.

In 2015 there still are gender disparities in Science. These are reflected in different aspects of science such as the comparatively few major research projects led by women and relatively low numbers of women as authors in major publications (even fewer as first or last author). Much work has been published on this issue, concluding that only around 30% of science authors are women, and although more research is needed, it is clear that the pipeline from junior to senior positions leaks female scientists. Most decision boards have an exclusive male composition and there is a need to study whether this affects the result of any selection based on the peer-review process. The unbalanced composition includes editorial boards of major journals. This article investigates this and other unbalanced situations to understand the extent to which citation and publication patterns differ between men and women in science in general and in earth sciences in particular, and the negative impacts of some widely used indices that can bias the research output from a gender perspective. We conclude that men are more published and more cited than women due to a number of factors, from the lack of awareness of the value of gender equity to the overwhelming masculine presence on editorial boards and manuscript reviewers and to an overall weak network of female scientists.

Equity and the dissemination of knowledge remain major challenges in science. Peer-reviewed journal publications are generally the most cited, yet certain groups dominate in archaeology. Such uniformity of voice profoundly limits not only who conveys the past but also what parts of the material record are narrated and/or go untold. This study examines multiple participation metrics in archaeology and explores the intersections of gender and occupational affiliation in peer-reviewed (high time cost) and non-peer-reviewed (reduced time cost) journals. We find that although women and compliance archaeologists remain poorly represented in regional and national peer-reviewed journals, they are much more active in unre-fereed publications. We review feminist and theoretical explanations for inequities in science and argue that (1) the persistent underrepresentation of women and of compliance professionals in archaeological publishing are structurally linked processes and (2) such trends can be best understood in light of the existing structure of American archaeology and the cost-benefit realities of publishing for people in various sectors of the discipline. We suggest that nonrefereed venues offer a pathway to multivocality and help to address epistemic injustices, and we discuss methods for widening the current narrow demographic of men and academics who persist in dominating discourses.