Female economists write papers that are more readable than those produced by their male counterparts but take significantly longer to get published, a new study has found.

presented at the Royal Economic Society¡¯s annual conference said that female-authored papers were between 1 and 6 per cent better written than male peers¡¯ efforts, according to common readability tests. The gap was largest in published texts rather than in earlier drafts, with the difference principally generated during the peer review process.

Female-authored papers took six months longer to get published, on average, says author?Erin Hengel, lecturer in economics at the University of Liverpool.

For her paper, ¡°Publishing while female: gender differences in peer review scrutiny¡±, Dr Hengel analysed more than 9,000 articles published in four leading economics journals since 1950. She found that papers written by men typically took around 18 and a half months to pass through peer review, while papers by women took just over two years on average.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The findings indicate that high readability might be the result of unconscious bias during peer review, with women being held to higher standards by reviewers. If women are ¡°stereotypically assumed less capable¡± and need more evidence to rate as equally competent, the paper says, ¡°well-intentioned referees might (unknowingly) inspect their papers more closely, demand a larger number of revisions and¡­be less tolerant of complicated, dense writing¡±.

Although this extra scrutiny is not necessarily a bad thing, Dr Hengel told?Times Higher Education that it ¡°isn¡¯t costless¡±: peer review is prolonged,?referees spend more time evaluating women¡¯s papers and women spend more time responding. Dr Hengel said this amounted to?a ¡°significant time tax¡± for female authors, and that these higher standards imposed a ¡°quantity versus quality trade-off¡± that would affect female academics' careers.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°Unequal time spent making revisions leads to unequal time conducting new research and potentially justifies lower pay and promotion rates,¡± she said. ¡°Tougher standards reduce women¡¯s output [but] ignoring them undervalues female labour and may account for general instances of lagging female productivity and wages.¡±

Search our database for the latest economics jobs

Besides better readability pre- and post-publication, the paper also found women¡¯s writing gradually improved more over time, whereas men¡¯s did not. Between their first and third published articles, the average readability gap between male and female authors grows by 12 per cent, Dr Hengel found.

¡°In theory, better writing puts women at an advantage,¡± Dr Hengel concluded. ¡°But although women write more clearly and journals appreciate well-written articles, there¡¯s no evidence that women¡¯s papers are more likely to be accepted than men¡¯s papers. So higher readability standards for female authors only really ends up restricting the quantity of research female scientists produce.¡±

john.elmes@timeshighereducation.com