The papers in this volume were published through a Registration-based Editorial Process (REP). Authors submitted proposals to gather and analyze data; successful proposals were guaranteed publication as long as the authors lived up to their commitments, regardless of whether results supported their predictions. To understand how REP differs from the Traditional Editorial Process (TEP), we analyze the papers themselves; conference comments; a survey of conference authors, reviewers, and attendees; and a survey of authors who have successfully published under TEP. We find that REP increases up-front investment in planning, data gathering, and analysis, but reduces follow-up investment after results are known. This shift in investment makes individual results more reproducible, but leaves articles less thorough and refined. REP could be improved by encouraging selected forms of follow-up investment

No abstract

We present 179 investment professionals with a scenario that manipulates whether a male or female analyst persists in pitching a stock pick after it has been voted down. Respondents evaluate analysts as less promotable when they do not persist, but only if the analyst is female. Results are consistent with categorization theory, which suggests evaluators rely on stereotypes to interpret unexpected behaviors. In male-dominated settings, the same unexpected behavior may be perceived as evidence of a "lack of fit" in evaluations of women, but nondiagnostic in evaluations of men. Analysis of free-response questions confirm that the unexpected behavior was a predominant focus in performance evaluations of women, but not for men. Semi-structured interviews with 13 senior investment professionals provide additional support for the role of expectations and categorization heuristics on promotion decisions. Our findings shed light on factors that may contribute to the investment industry's "leaky pipeline" for women.