Gender and the Editorial Process: World Politics, 2007–2017

• Published in: PS, political science & politics Vol. 51; no. 4; pp. 870 - 880
• Main Authors: Tudor, Carissa L., Yashar, Deborah J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.10.2018
• Subjects: Bias; Co authorship; Coding; Collegiality; Comparative politics; Editorials; Females; Gender; Intellectuals; International relations; Males; Men; Periodicals; Political science; Politics; Scholars; Single persons; Special Report; Special Report: Gender in the Journals, Continued: Evidence from Five Political Science Journals; Statistics; Students; Teams; Women
• ISSN: 1049-0965; 1537-5935
• DOI: 10.1017/S1049096518000641

World Politics is a quarterly journal founded in 1948. It publishes scholarly articles that speak to central debates and concerns in comparative politics and international relations. The journal publishes pieces that significantly advance theoretical debates, contribute original empirical knowledge, and deploy the most appropriate methods for the question at hand. The journal relies on a terrific and small staff. It is run by a dedicated editorial committee with the advice of a diverse and committed editorial board. Moreover, it relies on the good will and collegiality of scholars who volunteer their time to review our manuscripts and advise us in our triple blind review process (described in detail in the conclusion). For this we are enormously grateful as the strengths of the journal rely on this talented and extended team of scholars and staff. While there is much to be proud of, we are also concerned about the issues raised by Teele and Thelen (2017), who clearly demonstrate that the preponderance of articles published in political science journals are written by men. This is also true of World Politics. The World Politics editorial committee, therefore, was eager to assess the review process with an eye toward identifying if and where gender bias was in play. We did so with utmost commitment to the anonymity of the authors and reviewers. We tallied the data to analyze the front and back ends of the review process—from submissions to review to acceptance. The punchline is fourfold. First, men publish the lion’s share of articles in World Politics. Second, at World Politics we did not identify a gendered bias in the acceptance rates for solo-authored pieces. Men and women submitting solo-authored manuscripts have an equal likelihood of receiving an accept after being sent out for review; the rate of acceptance among reviewed manuscripts is 7.4% for both Solo Man and Solo Woman manuscripts. Third, we did identify notable variation in acceptance rates for coauthored articles. Among the pool of manuscripts that were sent out for review, coauthorship among single gender teams coincides with lower acceptance rates than both the overall acceptance rate and the acceptance rate for mixed gender teams. Teams of men and women have the greatest acceptance rates, while all women-teams have the lowest. None of the differences in acceptance rates are statistically significant based on tests conducted using several multiple logistic regressions. Fourth, withdrawal rates are highest among submissions by a solo man. This report is organized as follows. We share descriptive statistics (and how we conducted the study). We then assess the editorial process with the aid of a range of regressions, including an in-depth look at manuscript outcomes and reviewer recommendations. This is followed by a discussion of submission rates by gender. We conclude with lessons drawn and challenges that remain for the profession at large.