Women in applied behavior analysis

McSweeney, Frances K.; Donahoe, Patricia K.; Swindell, Samantha

doi:10.1007/bf03392015

Cited by 48 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, biases may extend beyond author gender. Notably, editorial boardsthe decisionmaking bodies of most scientific journalstend to be composed of proportionately more men than in the scholarly communities they serve (Morton & Sonnad 2007;Amrein et al 2011;Maule on et al 2013;Cho et al 2014;http://timotheepoisot.fr/2014/11/24/editorial-boards-genderbias/), and this disparity is often greater at more senior editorial levels (McSweeney, Donahoe & Swindell 2000;Addis & Villa 2003;Porter, Christian & Poling 2003; but see Maule on et al 2013). Although the number of women on editorial boards has been increasing, the rate of increase is generally slower than the rate of increase in female authorship observed in those same journals (Jagsi et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over‐selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early‐career male and female editors but differed a lot between late‐career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was about the same percentage for women authors in the field's leading journal for basic research-the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) (Myers; see also Laties, 1987;McSweeney & Swindell, 1998). In the field's leading applied journal-the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA)-the percentage was twice as high at 31% but was not at parity (Myers; see also Laties;McSweeney, Donahoe, & Swindell, 2000); the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management had the same percentage (Culig, Dickinson, McGee, & Austin, 2005; see also Jarema, Snycerski, Bagge, Austin, & Poling, 1999;McGee, Bucklin, Dickinson, & McSweeney, 2003). These findings are consistent with other assessments of women's underrepresentation in the field.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Trends in women’s participation at the meetings of the Association for Behavior Analysis: 1975–2005

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined women's participation, relative to men's, at the annual meetings of the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA) between 1975 and 2005. Among our findings are upward trends in female presenters across formats (e.g., posters), types of authorship (e.g., first authors), and specialty areas (e.g., autism). Where women have attained parity, however, they are still often underrepresented, given their percentage of membership. Women also participate less than men as sole and invited authors and discussants and in the domains of basic research and conceptual analysis, but participate more than men in the applied domain. Data from the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysisshow parallel but delayed trends toward parity in basic and applied research, whereas data from The Behavior Analyst show only modest gains in the conceptual domain. We discuss the gender disparities in ABA's more prestigious categories of participation (e.g., invited addresses) and across its content domains, as well as in science in general, and the role of social and cultural factors in producing the disparities and how behavior analysts might aid in correcting them.

show abstract

“…More recently, as the number of female academics increased, so did the study of gender diversity in editorial boards of academic journals (Bourns and Addis, 2004). Nevertheless, most of what we know about women's representation in editorial boards of academic journals is descriptive in nature and unrelated to the field of management (e.g., Addis and Villa, 2003;Carnegie, McWatters and Potter, 2003;McSweeney, Donahoe and Swindell, 2000;White, 1985). To our knowledge, there are two studies of gender diversity in editorial boards in the management area: McGee, Bucklin, Dickinson and McSweeney (2003) and Metz and Harzing (2009) So, what we know thus far is that the progress in women's representation in editorial boards of management journals has been somewhat patchy.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Metz

Harzing

2012

Personnel Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Women in applied behavior analysis

Cited by 48 publications

References 22 publications

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Trends in women’s participation at the meetings of the Association for Behavior Analysis: 1975–2005

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About