ARE WOMEN ACADEMICS SYSTEMATICALLY AND PERVASIVELY UNDERVALUED? AN EXPLORATION OF THEDEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF DIRECT EVALUATIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINSTWOMEN IN ACADEMIA
Cuvinte cheie:
direct evaluative discrimination, women, academia, underrepresentationRezumat
The paper explores the recent debate on the question of direct evaluative discrimination against women in academia. One side of this debate advocates – via scholars such as Virginia Valian, Jennifer Saul, Louise Antony, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, or Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold – the hypothesis of „systematic and pervasive” direct undervaluation of women academics’ scientific qualifications, achievements, and performances, presenting this hypothesis as one of the main possible explanations for women’s severe underrepresentation in academia in the developed countries, and in math intensive disciplines like STEM – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics – or in philosophy. The other side advocates – especially via scholars like Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams – the hypothesis that gender discrimination in academic evaluation is, in fact, only a problem of the past, not a current one. Which hypothesis is most plausible and best supported by the available evidence? Are indeed current women academics so systematically and pervasively (directly) undervalued as some scholars hypothesize? Or is the best evidence currently available pointing in the other direction? In trying to answer such questions, in this paper I review the evidence (and the main limitations of the evidence) for each hypothesis. I conclude that best supported by the relevant body of evidence is the hypothesis of systematic and pervasive (direct) evaluative bias against women academics being most likely only a problem of the past, not a current one.Referințe
Abbott, A. (1997). Equality Not Taken for Granted.Nature, 390, 204.
Abrevaya, J.&Hamermesh, D.S. (2012).Charity and Favoritism in the Field: Are Female Economists Nicer (To Each Other)? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, 202-207.
Antony, L.(2012). Different Voices or Perfect Storm: Why Are There So Few Women in Philosophy?Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(3),227-255.
Bazeley, P. (1998). Peer Review and Panel Decisions in the Assessment of Australian Research Council Project Grant Applicants: What Counts in a Highly Competitive Context?Higher Education, 35, 435-452.
Bernstein, R. (2015). Women Best Men in STEM Faculty Hiring Study. Science, April, DOI: 10.1126/science.aab2478.Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2015/04/women-best-men-stem-faculty-hiring-study.
Blanton, H., &Jaccard, J. (2006).Arbitrary Metrics in Psychology.American Psychologist, 61(1), 27-41.
Blanton, H. &Jaccard, J.&Klick, J.&Mellers, B &Mitchell, G. &Tetlock, P. (2009). Strong Claims and Weak Evidence: Reassessing the Predictive Validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 567-582.Preprint available at http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/ faculty_scholarship/1532/
Bornmann, L. (2007). Bias Cut. Nature,445, 566.
Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D.(2004). Reliability, Fairness and Predictive Validity of Committee Peer Review – Evaluation of the Selection of Post-Graduate Fellowship Holders by the BoehringerIngelheimFonds.B.I.F. Futura, 19, 7-19.
Bornmann, L.& Daniel, H.-D.(2005). Selection of Research Fellowship Recipients by Committee Peer Review.Reliability, Fairness and Predictive Validity of Board of Trustees’ Decisions.Scientometrics, 63(2), 297-320.
Bornmann, L.&Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D.(2007). Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226-238.
Bornmann, L.&Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008a). How to Detect Indications of Potential Sources of Bias in Peer Review: A Generalized Latent Variable Modeling Approach Exemplified by a Gender Study. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 280-287.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008b). Latent Markov Modeling Applied to Grant Peer Review. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 217-228.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D.(2009). The Influence of the Applicants’ Gender on the Modelling of a Peer-Review Process by Using Latent Markov Models.Scientometrics,81(2), 407-411.
Borsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., &Cortie, C. J. (2009). To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review.Bioscience, 59, 11, 985-989.
Breda, T.& Ly, S. T. (2012).Do Professors Really Perpetuate the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in a French Higher Education Institution.SE Working Papers, 2012-13.Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00677438/document.
Breda, T.&Ly, S. T. (2014).Professors in Core Science Fields are Biased in Favor of Women: Evidence from France.Retrieved from http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/ly-son-thierry/ gendergapulm.pdf.
Brooks, J.&Della Sala, S. (2009). Re-Addressing Gender Bias in Cortex Publications.Cortex, 45(10), 1126-1137.
Brouns, M. (2000). The Gendered Nature of Assessment Procedures in Scientific Research Funding: The Dutch Case. Higher Education in Europe, XXV, 2, 193-199.
Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W.,Koricheva,J., Leimu,R., &Lortie, C. J. (2002).Double-blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8), 349-350.
Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Tregenza, T.,Aarssen, L. W.,Koricheva, J., &Leimu, R. (2008a). Response to Webb et al: Double-Blind Review: Accept with Minor Revisions.Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(7), 353.
Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., &Leimu, R. (2008b).The Authors Respond.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 67, 354-355.
Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., &Leimu, R. (2008c). Response to Whitakker: Challenges in Testing for Gender Bias. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23(9), 480.
Cañibano, C., Otamendi, J., &Andújar, I. (2009). An Assessment of Selection Processes Among Candidates for Public Research Grants: The Case of the Ramón y CajalProgramme in Spain. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 153-161.
Ceci, S. J.& Williams, W. M. (2010).The Mathematics of Sex. How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ceci, S. J.& Williams, W. M. (2011).Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(8), 3157-3162.
Ceci, S. J.& Williams, W. M. (2015).Women Scientists’ Academic-Hiring Advantage is Unwelcome News for Some: Part 2. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ wendy-m-williams/women-scientists-academic-hiring-advantage-is_b_7195312.html.
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., &Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,15(3),75-141.
Darling, E.S. (2015).Use of Double-Blind Peer Review to Increase Author Diversity.Conservation Biology, 29(1), 297-299.
Demicheli, V.& Di Pietrantonj, C. (2004). Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications. Cochrane Library, 1.
Dickson, D. (1997). Female Scientists Wanted – Apply to UK Research Councils. Nature,390, 431.
Engquist, L.&Frommen, J. G. (2008).Double-Blind Review and Gender Publication Bias.Animal Behaviour, 76(3), e1-e2.
European Commission.(2013). She Figures 2012. Gender in Research and Innovation.Statistics and Indicators. Luxembourg: Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union.
Fidell, L. S. (1970). Empirical Verification of Sex Discrimination in Hiring Practices in Psychology.American Psychologist, 25, 1094-1098.
Fox, M. F. (1991). Gender, Environmental Milieu, and Productivity in Science. In H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, & J. T. Bruer (Eds.), The Outer Circle Women in the Scientific Community (pp. 188-204). New York: WW Norton & Co.
Fox, M. F. (1995). Women and Scientific Careers.inS. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies(pp.205-223). Newbury Park: Sage.
Friesen, H. G. (1998). Equal opportunities in Canada.Nature, 391, 326.
Gannon, F.&Quirk, S. &Guest, S. (2001). Searching for Discrimination: Are Women Treated Fairly in the EMBO Postdoctoral Fellowship Scheme? EMBO Reports, 2(8), 655-657.
Gilbert, J. R.,Williams, E. S.,& Lundberg, G. D. (1994).Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? JAMA, 272(2), 139-142.
Glass, C.&Minnotte, K. L. (2010).Recruiting and Hiring Women in STEM Fields. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(4), 218-229.
Goldberg, P. A. (1968). Are Women Prejudiced Against Women?Transaction 5, 28-30.
Gopnik, A. (2011). What John Tierney Gets Wrong About Women Scientists?Understanding a New Study About Discrimination. Slate.Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/what_john_tierney_gets_wrong_about_women_scientists.html.
Grant, J.,Burden, S., & Breen, G. (1997). No Evidence of Sexism in Peer Review. Nature, 390, 438.
Greenwald, A. G. &McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998).Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
Greenwald, A. G.,Rudman, L. A.,Nosek, B. A., &Zayas, V. (2006). Why So Little Faith? A Reply to Blanton and Jaccard’s (2006) Skeptical View of Testing Pure Multiplicative Theories.Psychological Review, 113(1), 170-180.
Hammerschmidt, K.,Reinhardt, K.,&Rolff, J. (2008). Does Double-Blind Review Favor Female Authors? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 67, 354.
Haslanger, S. (2008). Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy: Not by Reason (Alone). Hypatia, 23(2), 210-223.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & A. St. Rose.(2010). Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington DC: AAUW.
Hinz, T.,Findeisen, I., &Auspurg, K. (2007). Gender Equality in DFG Research Funding – Facts and Assessment. DFG Infobrief, 1, 4.
Hoff Sommers, C. (2008).Foolishly Seeking Gender Equity in Math and Science, USA Today, 61.
Hosek, S. D., Cox, A. G.,Ghosh-Dastidar, B.,Kofner, A.,Ramphal, N.,Scott, J.,&Berry, S. H. (2005). Gender Differences in Major Federal External Grant Programs. Santa Monica, Arlington, and Pittsburgh: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR307.pdf.
Irvine, A. D. (1996) Jack and Jill and Employment Equity.Dialogue, 35, 255-292.
Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W.,&Bond, N. (2001). Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 343-364.
Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2003). A Multilevel Cross-Classified Modelling Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Effects of Assessor and Researcher Attributes on Assessor Ratings.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 166(3), 279-300.
Jost, J. T.,Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J.,&Hardin, C. D.. (2009). The Existence of Implicit Bias is Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Refutation of Ideological and Methodological Objections and Executive Summary of Ten Studies That No Manager Should Ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39-69.
Kaminski, D.&Geisler, C. (2012).Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention in Science and Engineering by Gender.Science, 335, 864-866.
Kaplan, S. (2015). Study Finds, Surprisingly, that Women Are Favored for Jobs in STEM. The Washington Post, April.Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/ 14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/.
Kimura, D. (2002). Preferential Hiring of Women.SAFS – The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship Newsletter, April.Retrieved from http://www.safs.ca/april2002.html.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S.,Glynn, C. J.,& Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603-625.
Krawczyk, M. &Smyk, M. (2016).Author's Gender Affects the Rating of Academic Articles: Evidence from an Incentivized, Deception-Free Laboratory Experiment. European Economic Review90, 326-3357.
Lane, J. A. &Linden, D. J. (2009). Is There Gender Bias in the Peer Review Process at Journal of Neurophysiology?Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 2195-2196.
Leboy, P. (2008). Fixing the Leaky Pipeline. Why aren't there many women in the top spots in academia?The Scientist, 22, 67-70. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/ 25887/title/Fixing-the-Leaky-Pipeline/.
Ledin, A., Bornmann, L.,Gannon, F.,&Wallon, G.A Persistent Problem.EMBO Reports, 8(11), 982-987.
Lee, C. J. (2015). Revisiting Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science.In J. Saul & M. Brownstein (Eds.), Implicit Bias and Philosophy Volume 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology.Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/c3/ Lee_2015b.pdf.
Ley, T.J.& Hamilton, B. H. (2008).Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications.Science, 322, 1472-1474.
Madera, J. M.,Hebl, M. R., &Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591-1599.
Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe,U. W.,& Bond, N. W. (2011).Gender Differences in Peer Reviews of Grant Applications: A Substantive-Methodological Synergy in Support of the Null Hypothesis Model. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 167-180.
Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., & O’Mara, A. (2009).Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1290-1326.
Marsh, H. W. &Bornmann, L. (2009).Do Women Have Less Success in Peer Review?Nature, 459, 602.
Merritt, D. J.& Reskin, B. F. (1997). Sex, Race, and Credentials: The Truth about Affirmative Action in Law Faculty Hiring. Columbia Law Review, 97(2), 199-311.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science.Science, 159, 56-63.
Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2013).Gender Bias Also Contributes to the Attrition of Women in Science.BioScience,63(5), 318
Moss-Racusin C. A., Dovidio, J. F.,Brescoll, V. L.,Graham,M. J., &Handelsman, J. (2012). Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474-16479.
Mutz, R.,Bornmann, L.,&Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review? An Empirical Investigation Using the Example of the Austrian Science Fund.ZeitschriftfürPsychologie, 220(2), 121-129.
National Research Council.(2010). Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Nature Editorial. (2008). Working double-blind.Nature, 451, 605-606.
Nature Neuroscience Editorial.(2006). “Women in Neuroscience: A Numbers Game”. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 853.Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v9/n7/pdf/nn0706-853.pdf.
Østby, G., Håvard S.,&Ragnhild N. (2013) “Gender Gap or Gender Bias in Peace Research? Publication Patterns and Citation Rates for Journal of Peace Research, 1983–2008”. International Studies Perspectives 14, 493-506.
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., &Tetlock, P. E. (2013).“Predicting Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: A Meta-Analysis of IAT Criterion Studies”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105, 2, 171-192.
Paludi, M. A. & Bauer, D. W. (1983).Goldberd Revisited: What’s in an Author’s Name. Sex Roles 9, 3, 387-390.
Paludi, M. A. &Strayer L.A. (1985).What's in an Author's Name? Differential Evaluations of Performance as a Function of Author's Name.Sex Roles 12, 3-4, 353-361.
Pohlhaus, J. R., Jiang H., Wagner, R. M., Schaffer, W. T.,&Pinn. V. W. (2011). Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for NIH Extramural Programs.Academic Medicine 86, 759-767.
Primack, R. B., Ellwood, E., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Marrs, R.,& Mulligan, A. (2009).Do Gender, Nationality, or Academic Age Affect Review Decisions? An Analysis of Submissions to the Journal Biological Conservation, Biological Conservation 142, 2415-2418.
RAND. (2005). “Is There Gender Bias in Federal Grant Programs?” RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment Brief RB-9147-NSF. http://rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9147/RAND_RB9147. pdf.
Reinhart, M. (2009).Peer Review of Grant Applications in Biology and Medicine. Reliability, Fairness, and Validity.Scientometrics 81, 3, 789-809.
Reuben, E.,Sapienza, P., &Zingales, L. (2014). How Stereotypes Impair Women’s Careers in Science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 12, 4403-4408.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993).The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.Social Studies of Science 23, 2, 325-341.
Sandström, U. &Hällsten, M. (2008).Persistent Nepotism in Peer-Review.Scientometrics 74, 2, 175-189.
Saul, J. (2013). Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat and Women in Philosophy.inWomen in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?eds. Katherine Hutchison and Fiona Jenkins. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 39–60.
Schmader, T., Whitehead, J.,&Wysocki, V.H.(2007). A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants.Sex Roles 57, 509-514.
Selby, C. C. (2006). Does Bias in Science Hold Women Back? The FASEB Journal 20, 1284-1287.
Seligman, C. (2001). Summary of Recruitment Activity for All Full-Time Faculty at the University of Western Ontario by Sex and Year. SAFS – The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship Newsletter.http://www.safs.ca/ april2001/recruitment.html.
Sesardic, N. &De Clercq, R. (2014). Women in Philosophy: Problems with the Discrimination Hypothesis. National Asociation of Scholars, 2014.https://www.nas.org/articles/women_in_ philosophy_problems_with_the_discrimination_hypothesis.
Sheridan, B. (1998). Strangers in a Strange Land: a Literature Review of Women in Science. CGIAR Gender Program Working Paper No. 17. http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/ 5710/gender17.pdf?sequence=1.
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, A.K., &Ritzke, D.(1999). The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex Roles 41, 718, 509-528.
Swim, J.,Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989) Joan McKay Versus John McKay: Do Gender Stereotypes Bias Evaluations?Psychological Bulletin 105, 3, 409-429.
Top, T. J. (1991) Sex Bias in the Evaluation of Performance in the Scientific, Artistic, and Literary Professions: A Review. Sex Roles 24, 1-2, 73-106.
Tregenza, T. (2002) Gender Bias in the Refereeing Process?Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, I8, 349-350.
Trix, F. &Psenka, C. (2003) Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty. Discourse & Society 14, 2, 214-215.
Valian, V. (1998).Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Van den Besselaar, P. &Leydesdorff, L. (2009) Past Performance, Peer-Review and Project Selection: A Case Study in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Research Evaluation 18, 4, 273-288.
Van den Brink, M. &Benschop, Y. (2011). “Gender Practices in the Construction of Academic Excellence: Sheep with Five Legs”. Organization 19, 4, 507-524.
Waisbren, S. E., Bowles, H., Hasan, T., Zhou, K.H.,Emans, S.J., Goldberg C., Gould, S., Levine, D.,Lieberman, E.,Loeken, M.,Longtine, J.,Nadelson, C.,Patenaude, A.F., Quinn, D., Randolph, A. G., Solet, J.M., Ullrich, N., Walensky, R., Weitzman, P., and Christou, H. (2008). „Gender Differences in Research Grant Applications and Funding Outcomes for Medical School Faculty”. Journal of Women’s Health 17, 2, 207-214.
Wall, S., Emmelin, M., Janlert, U., Mustonen, L., and Skog, B. (2006). “Who Submits to and Publishes in this Journal? A Peer-Review Study of 772 Manuscripts 2000–2004”.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 34 (2006): 337–341.
Ward, J. & Donnelly, N. (1998).. “Is There Gender Bias in Research Fellowships Awarded by the NHMRC?” The Medical Journal of Australia 169, 21623-21624.
Webb, T. J., O’Hara, B., &Freckleton, R. P. (2008). “Does Double-Blind Review Benefit Female Authors”, Trends in Ecology and Evaluation 23, 7, 352.
Wellcome Trust. Women and Peer-Review: An Audit of the Wellcome Trust's Decision-Making on Grants. London: The Wellcome Trust, 1997. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/ corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd003212.pdf.
Wennerås, C. &Wold, A. (1997) ”Nepotism and sexism in peer-review”. Nature 387, 341-343.
Wennerås, C. &Wold, A. (1999) “Bias in Peer-Review of Research Proposals”.In Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds. Fiona Godlee, Tom Jefferson. London: BMJ Books, 79-89.
Wennerås, C. &Wold, A. (2000) “A Chair of One’s Own. The Upper Reaches of Academe Remain Stubbornly Inaccessible to Women”. Nature 408, 7, 647.
Whittaker, R. J. (2008). “Journal Review and Gender Equality: A Critical Comment on Budden et al.”.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 9, 478-479.
Williams, W. M. &Ceci, S. J. (2015).“National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on STEM Tenure Track”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112.
Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., &Goulden, M. (2008). “Problems in the Pipeline: Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower”. The Journal of Higher Education 79, 4, 388-405.
Wood, F. &Wessely, S. (2003). “Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Systematic Review”. In Peer Review in Health Sciences, Second Edition, eds. Fiona Godlee and Tom Jefferson. London: BMJ Books, 2003, 21-22.
Zevallos, Z. (2015). ”The Myth About Women in Science? Bias in the Study of Gender Inequality in STEM”.April 16 2015, http://othersociologist.com/2015/04/16/myth-about-women-in-science/ #more-3982.
