Actualised and future changes in regional economic growth through sea level rise

Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis (), Ignasi Cortes Arbues (), Daniel Lincke (), Jochen Hinkel (), Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis () and Richard Tol
Additional contact information
Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis: Department of Multi-Actor Systems, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands , PBL—Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ignasi Cortes Arbues: Department of Multi-Actor Systems, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Daniel Lincke: Global Climate Forum, Berlin, Germany
Jochen Hinkel: Global Climate Forum, Berlin, Germany
Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis: Department of Multi-Actor Systems, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands , PBL—Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Theodoros Chatzivasileiadis

Working Paper Series from Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate one factor that can directly contribute to—as well as indirectly shed light on the other causes of—the gender gap in academic publishing: length of peer review. Using detailed administrative data from an economics field journal, we find that, conditional on manuscript quality, referees spend longer reviewing female-authored papers,are slower to recommend accepting them, manuscripts by women go through more rounds of review and their authors spend longer revising them. Less disaggregated data from 32 economics and finance journals corroborate these results. We conclude by showing that all gender gaps decline and eventually disappear as the same referee reviews more papers. This pattern suggests novice referees initially statistically discriminate against female authors, but are less likely to do so as their information about and confidence in the peer review process improves. More generally, they also suggest that women may be particularly disadvantaged when evaluators aare less familiar with the objectives and parameters of an assessment framework.

New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-env, nep-geo and nep-ure
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-03-2024.pdf&site=18 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Actualised and future changes in regional economic growth through sea level rise (2023)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sus:susewp:0324

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Paper Series from Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by University of Sussex Business School Communications Team ().