Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Women academics publish less frequently than men, they may also be subject to discrimination and gender bias in men dominated disciplines. Citation metrics are advocated by assessment bodies and advisory agencies to standardise research assessment. We focus on the metrics suggested for assessment and newer metrics that capture additional dimensions of performance. Our data comes from a sample of accounting authors from 1958 to 2008. The results suggest that citation metrics that accommodate excess citations, such as the e-index, tend to treat women researchers more favourably, and offer an evaluation of research performance that is better able to reflect the type of research output profile that is more typical for women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N., & Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballas, A., & Theoharakis, V. (2003). Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 619–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbezat, D. A. (2006). Gender differences in research patterns amongst Phd economists. Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bline, D. M. (2007). A commentary on ‘publish or perish: Is this really a viable set of options? Accounting Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 241–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1999). The Matthew Index—concentration patterns and Matthew core journals. Scientometrics, 44(3), 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Der Stede, Van, Wim, A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journal in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Academy. (2007). Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences. London, United Kingdom: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D. (2003). Ranking journals using social science research network downloads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(3), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals and articles on contemporary accounting research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. C., Chan, C. C., Seow, G. S., & Tam, K. (2009). Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 875–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., & Chang, Y. C. (2013). Ranking of finance journals: some google scholar citation perspectives. Journal of Empirical Finance, 21(March), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., Chang, C. C., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, T. F. (2012). An analysis of the accounting and finance research productivity in Australia and New Zealand in 1991–2010. Accounting and Finance, 52(1), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., Chen, C. R., & Cheng, L. T. W. (2005). Ranking research productivity in accounting for Asia-Pacific universities. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 24(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., & Liano, K. (2009). Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting. Accounting and Finance, 49(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, B. G., & Andras, P. (2007). Evaluating universities using simple scientometric research-output metrics: Total citation counts per university for a retrospective seven-year rolling sample. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, C. (2007). Feasibility study: The evaluation and benchmarking of humanities research in Europe, Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA). Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engemann, K. M., & Wall, H. J. (2009). A journal ranking for the ambitious economist. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review, 91(3), 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A., & Brun, M. (2011). The gender gap in citations: Does it persist? Feminist Economics, 17(1), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. A. (2010). Analysis of the Hirsch index’s operational properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 494–504.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Haley, M. R. (2013). Rank variability of the publish or perish metrics for economics and finance journals. Applied Economics Letters, 20(9), 830–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2007). The journal quality list. Available on the internet at http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Heck, J. L. (2009). Most prolific authors in the accounting literature over the past half-century: 1959–2008. SSRN Working paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1344072.

  • Hilmer, C., & Hilmer, M. (2007). Women helping women, men helping women? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 97(2), 422–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (46), 16569–16572. http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full.

  • Hull, R. P., & Wright, G. B. (1990). Faculty perceptions of journal quality: An update. Accounting Horizons, 4(1), 77–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. M., Reckers, P. M., & Solomon, L. (2002). Evolving research benchmarks. Advances in Accounting, 19, 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimery, K. M., Mellon, M. J., & Rinehart, S. M. (2004). Publishing in the accounting journals: Is there a gender bias? Journal of Business and Economics Research, 2(4), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstad, J., & Smith, G. (2003). Assessing the influence of auditing: A journal of practice and theory 1985–1999. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22(1), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. H., Yap, C. S., Lim, Y. M., & Tam, C. L. (2012). Accounting researchers in Asia Pacific: A study on publication productivity and citation analysis. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(1), 132–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Rousseau, R. (2009). Properties of Hirsch-type indices: The case of library classification categories. Scientometrics, 79(2), 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, F.C., & Reed, G. (2013). The current state and recommendations for meaningful academic research metrics among American research universities. A Report of the Research Metrics Working Group, US Research Universities Futures Consortium.

  • Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: Results of web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. M., Lange, S., & Brus, H. (2013). Gendered citation patterns in international relations journals. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 485–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research Excellence Framework. (2014). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2009). Measuring the impact of accounting journal using google scholar and g-index. The British Accounting Review, 41(4), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(3), A14–A16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, G., Haddad, K. M., & Chow, C. W. (2007). Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. D. (2004). Is an article in a top journal a top article? Financial Management, 33(4), 133–149.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stammerjohan, W. W., & Hall, S. C. (2002). Evaluation of doctoral programs in accounting: An examination of placement. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Office of Science and Technology. (2006). Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: Next steps. London: UK Office of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, R. (2008). Networks of accounting research—a citation-based structural and network analysis. British Accounting Review, 40(3), 228–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., et al. (2015). The metric tide—report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. London: Higher Education Funding Council of England. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE, 4(5), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. T. (2010). Relationship of the h-index, g-index and e-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 625–628.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia

    Wai Ching Poon & Gareth D. Leeves

Authors
  1. Wai Ching Poon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gareth D. Leeves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wai Ching Poon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poon, W.C., Leeves, G.D. Is there gender gap unequivocally? Evidence from research output 1958–2008. Scientometrics 111, 1687–1701 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2327-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2327-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation