Isaac Wilhelm (Rutgers) has drawn my attention to a new paper  he has forthcoming in Philosophical Studies with Sherry Lynn Conklin (UC Santa Barbara) and Nicole Hassoun (SUNY Binghamton) on the representation of women authors in philosophy journals. The abstract:

This paper presents new data on the representation of women who publish in 25 top philosophy journals as ranked by the Philosophical Gourmet Report for the years 2004, 2014, and 2015. It also provides a new analysis of Schwitzgebel’s 1955–2015 journal data. The paper makes four points while providing an overview of the current state of women authors in philosophy. In all years and for all journals, the percentage of female authors was extremely low, in the range of 14–16%. The percentage of women authors is less than the percentage of women faculty in different ranks and at different kinds of institutions. In addition, there is great variation across individual journals, and the discrepancy between women authors and women faculty appears to be different in different subfields. Interestingly, journals which do not practice anonymous review seem to have a higher percentage of women authors than journals which practice double anonymous or triple anonymous review. This paper also argues that we need more data on academic publishing to better understand whether this can explain why there are so few full-time female faculty in philosophy, since full-time hiring and tenuring practices presumably depend on a candidate’s academic publishing.

Posted in ,

One response to “New data on representation of women in philosophy journals”

  1. Amanda

    There is a long discussion about this on daily nous, but there are MAJOR problems with this paper – or at least with implications many might draw from it. The data does not include how many women submit papers, so we have no way of knowing if women are publishing in exact proportion to their submission rates. And that might explain why women supposedly do better with non-anonymous review. Because women are actively recruited with at least one of the two journals the authors choose to write about for the non-anonymous review section (or so I have heard), then the higher acceptance rate could have nothing to do with anonymity and everything to do with higher submission rates. In short, given the data the authors used, there is not much we can conclude. The paper does, however, bring attention to projects that could be of interest if more data is gathered, so in that sense publishing it will hopefully prove valuable.

Leave a Reply to AmandaCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading