As someone who has gone through quite a few application processes in academia, I can say the results of this (subjective) survey:<p>> We followed up our research with a survey of 231 academics, asking for their attitudes towards discrimination in hiring to editorial boards. Although two-thirds of academics supported no bias, for every 1 academic who supported discrimination in favour of men, 11 supported discrimination in favour of women. Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that academics and journal editors are biased in favour of women, rather than against women<p>Do not surprise me at all, and qualitatively the bias favoring women has seemed to be true in my experience.<p>HOWEVER, it's very hard to give this paper any credibility when the authors are willing to casually drop a statement like<p>> As mentioned, the variance in intelligence is higher amongst males, and their
average also seems to be somewhat higher<p>On the third page. I'm aware there have been one or two studies to this effect, but a quality like "intelligence" is so amorphous, and any attempts to measure it are surely met with confounding variables, and even if treated statistically carefully is such a controversial topic, it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.
From the abstract:<p>> Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that academics and journal editors are biased in favour of women, rather than against women.
Also useful to consider you can actually watch the peer review process for this paper here: <a href="https://openpsych.net/forums/5/thread/242/" rel="nofollow">https://openpsych.net/forums/5/thread/242/</a>
It matches previous results like this one from 2015:<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/1...</a><p>More scholarly take on the same study:<p><a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1418878112" rel="nofollow">https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1418878112</a>
Author is quite the character<p><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard" rel="nofollow">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard</a>
I think the bias here should be pointed out. There is such a large and obvious agenda here that the data is inherently untrustworthy. Garbage in Garbage out.<p>1) OpenPsych isnt some prestigious scientific journal with rigorous peer review. It was founded by the author of this piece, and has had a public and troublesome past as a pseudoscience journal[1]<p>2)The review process was literally done by anonymous users of that site.[2]<p>3) I doubt the sincerity of the author when considering his past thoughts on women.<p>3a) Reposting and saying he agrees with a literal 4chan post on why women are less creative. <a href="https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/quote-lit-anon-on-female-writers/" rel="nofollow">https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/quote-lit-anon-on-femal...</a><p>3b) Just an large rant on why woman are inferior to men.
<a href="https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/01/too-many-women-in-the-wrong-places-norwegian-navy-edition/" rel="nofollow">https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/01/too-many-women-in-the-w...</a><p>> As women increasingly are hired into traditionally male jobs via affirmative action laws or indirect pressure via media, we see more and more incompetence
> Not only are women more less interested in these jobs to begin with, but they obviously lack talent compared to men.
> Of course, as we live in clown world with no adults in charge, the army is going forward with more women in these roles<p>3c) <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard" rel="nofollow">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych</a>
[2] <a href="https://openpsych.net/person/profile/75/" rel="nofollow">https://openpsych.net/person/profile/75/</a>
Excuse a question from a total statistics illiterate:<p>> Using a transformation of the h-index as our indicator of research output, we find male research output to be 0.35 standard deviations (p < 0.001) above female research output. However, the gap falls to 0.13 standard deviations (p < 0.001) when years publishing is controlled for.<p>What does this mean? What does "years publishing is controlled for" means?
<i>However, the gap falls to 0.13 standard deviations (p < 0.001) when years publishing is controlled for.</i><p>This is a much smaller gap than I would have expected.
I find this paper a bit confusing.<p>Authors use "woman", "men", "male" and "female" interchangeably at beginning. Latter to stay on safe side they use word "sex". But try to determine that from persons name and images!<p>Perhaps authors should first define what they are trying to measure. And then ask people about their sex and gender identity!<p>Guessing core data makes this paper totally random and irrelevant!<p>From paper:<p>> In line with the practice of previous research on sex representation on editorial boards, we coded the sex of
academics according to whether their names were clearly male or female (e.g. Ioannidou & Rosiana 2015).
When this was not obvious we used Google Search to find their sex from pictures or left the sex variable missing
when this was insufficient. Of the 5,625 editorial board members in our dataset, we were unable to determine
the sex of 7 individuals.