An update of gender diversity in editorial boards: a longitudinal study of management journals

Abstract

PurposeThis study updates our knowledge of women's representation on the boards of scholarly management journals with a longitudinal analysis of the same over two decades. Design/methodology/approachThis study extends the work of Metz and Harzing (2009) Practical ImplicationsThis study's findings clearly indicate that there is still much that can be done to narrow the gender imbalance in most editorial boards of management journals. Monitoring women's representation in editorial boards of management journals is only one of the steps needed for successful change to occur. Social implicationsThis study's findings matter for our society because editorial board membership is a sign of one's scholarly recognition and valued in academic promotion processes. It is important, therefore, that this promotion criterion be evaluated in the context of up-to-date knowledge of the representation of women in editorial boards of management journals, otherwise its impact on women's promotion could exacerbate an already discriminatory system of academic scholarship Originality/ValueIt is important to regularly monitor women's (under)representation on the boards of scholarly management journals to raise awareness that might lead to or sustain positive change. This follow-up study serves that purpose in the field of management, a largely neglected field until recently.

Power in Editorial Positions: A Feminist Critique of Public Administration

“…Journal editors and editorial boards therefore play important roles as gatekeepers of knowledge within fields and the academic marketplace more broadly. Although we have seen reports of increased gender equality in academic journal editorial boards (e.g., Addis and Villa ; Metz and Harzing ; Metz, Harzing, and Zyphur ), these increases have not kept pace with the proportion of female scholars in various fields. In fact, “there is still substantial variability in women's level of representation on EBs [editorial boards] across journals in the same field of study” (Metz, Harzing, and Zyphur , 712).…”

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

“…The opportunity for homophilous interactions is determined by the demographics of the 572 gatekeeper pool, and the demographics of the gatekeepers differed significantly from those of 573 the authors, even for last authors, who tend to be more senior [59][60][61][62]. The underrepresentation 574 of women at eLife mirrors global trends-women comprise a minority of total authorships, yet 575 constitute an even smaller proportion of gatekeepers across many domains [14, [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. Similarly, 576 gatekeepers at eLife were less geographically diverse than their authorship, reflecting the general 577 underrepresentation of the "global south" in leadership positions of international journals [75].…”

Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management

“…However, Cho$et$al.,$p.$7" surveys in economics (Addis & Villa 2003;Green 1998), medicine (Galley & Colvin 2013;122" Keiser, Utzinger & Singer 2003), management (Metz & Harzing 2012), information systems 123" (Cabanac 2012), and anthropology (Stark et al 1997) have found comparable disparities in the 124" gender composition of editorial boards. Assuming the results for our focal journals are 125"…”