skip to main content
research-article

Understanding Gender Equity in Author Order Assignment

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Women remain underrepresented in many fields in computer science, particularly at higher levels. In academia, success and promotion are influenced by a researcher's publication record. In many fields, including computer science, multi-author papers are the norm. Evidence from other fields shows that author order norms can influence the assignment of credit. We conduct interviews of students and faculty in human-computer interaction (HCI) and machine learning (ML) to determine factors related to assignment of author order in collaborative publication. The outcomes of these interviews then informed metrics of interest for a bibliometric analysis of gender and collaboration in research papers published from 1996 to 2016 in three top HCI and ML conferences. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for assignment of credit in multi-author papers and interpretation of author order, particularly in regard to how this area affects women.

References

  1. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2016. Policy on authorship. https://www.acm.org/publications/policy-on-authorshipGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. n.d.. Author information. https://tochi.acm.org/authors/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Claire Ainsworth. 2015. Sex redefined. https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gerald V. Barrett and Scott B. Morris. 1993. The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The values of science versus the values of the law. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 17, 2 (1993), 201--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Tamara Bates, Ante Anić, Matko Maruvs ić, and Ana Maruvs ić. 2004. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 292, 1 (2004), 86--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Christine Bauer and Afsaneh Doryab. 2016. Solving the battle of first-authorship: Using interactive technology to highlight contributions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 609--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bharati Belwalkar and Steven Toaddy. 2014a. Authorship determination scorecard. http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bharati Belwalkar and Steven Toaddy. 2014b. Authorship tie-breaker scorecard. http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-tie-breaker-scorecard.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jerome T. Bentley and Rebecca Adamson. 2003. Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers: A literature review. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sue E. Berryman. 1983. Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohit Bhandari, Thomas A. Einhorn, Marc F. Swiontkowski, and James D. Heckman. 2003. Who did what? The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 85, 8 (2003), 1605--1609.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Lana Bovs njak and Ana Maruvs ić. 2012. Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics, Vol. 93, 3 (2012), 751--763.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103, 1 (2007), 84--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sheryl D. Brahnam, Thomas M. Margavio, Michael A. Hignite, Tonya B. Barrier, and Jerry M. Chin. 2005. A gender-based categorization for conflict resolution. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24, 3 (2005), 197--208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michael Burawoy. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory, Vol. 16, 1 (1998), 4--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Judith Butler. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity .Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tracy Camp. 1997. The incredible shrinking pipeline. Commun. ACM, Vol. 40, 10 (1997), 103--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108, 8 (2011), 3157--3162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. McGrath Cohoon and William Aspray (Eds.). 2006. Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation. Vol. 1. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jonathan R. Cole, Burton Singer, et almbox. 1991. A theory of limited differences: Explaining the productivity puzzle in science. In The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, Harriet Zuckerman, Jonathan R. Cole, John T. Bruer, et almbox. (Eds.). Norton, New York, 277--310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989, 1 (1989), 139--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nilanjana Dasgupta, Melissa McManus Scircle, and Matthew Hunsinger. 2015. Female peers in small work groups enhance women's motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, 16 (2015), 4988--4993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Derek J. de Solla Price and Donald Beaver. 1966. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, Vol. 21, 11 (1966), 1011--1018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2000. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, Vol. 11, 4 (2000), 315--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. The Economist. 2016. Why research papers have so many authors. https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21710792-scientific-publications-are-getting-more-and-more-names-attached-them-whyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Juliet Eilperin. 2016. White House women want to be in the room where it happens. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/13/white-house-women-are-now-in-the-room-where-it-happens/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferhat Elmas. 2013. Sex Machine. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/SexMachine/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mary Frank Fox. 2005. Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, 1 (2005), 131--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mary Frank Fox and Sushanta Mohapatra. 2007. Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 78, 5 (2007), 542--571.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sebastian Frische. 2012. It is time for full disclosure of author contributions. Nature, Vol. 489, 7417 (2012), 475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Michelle C. Haynes and Madeline E. Heilman. 2013. It had to be you (not me)! Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2013), 956--969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Madeline E. Heilman and Michelle C. Haynes. 2005. No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, 5 (2005), 905--916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. David R. Hekman, Stefanie K. Johnson, Maw-Der Foo, and Wei Yang. 2016. Does Diversity-valuing Behavior Result in Diminished Performance Ratings for Nonwhite and Female Leaders? Academy of Management Journal (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Erin Hengel. 2017. Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Gary Holden, Gary Rosenberg, and Kathleen Barker. 2005. Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Social Work in Health Care, Vol. 41, 3--4 (2005), 67--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Janet Holmes. 2005. Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant? In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse, , Michelle M. Lazar (Ed.). Springer, 31--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Shulamit Kahn. 1993. Gender differences in academic career paths of economists. The American Economic Review, Vol. 83, 2 (1993), 52--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Cheryl R. Kaiser and Carol T. Miller. 2001. Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27, 2 (2001), 254--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Jofish Kaye. 2015. A rose by any other name. http://sigchi.tumblr.com/post/127563985260/a-rose-by-any-other-nameGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Svein Kyvik and I. Marheim Larsen. 1994. International contact and research performance. Scientometrics, Vol. 29, 1 (1994), 161--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Svein Kyvik and Mari Teigen. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 21, 1 (1996), 54--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Michelle M. Lazar. 2005. Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse, , Michelle M. Lazar (Ed.). Springer, 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Erin Leahey. 2006. Gender differences in productivity research: Specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, Vol. 20, 6 (2006), 754--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jory Lerback and Brooks Hanson. 2017. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, Vol. 541 (2017), 455--457.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, Vol. 347, 6219 (2015), 262--265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Michael Ley. 2002. The DBLP computer science bibliography: Evolution, research issues, perspectives. In International Symposium on String Processing and Information Retrieval. Springer, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Juan M. Madera, Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin. 2009. Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, 6 (2009), 1591--1599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Paula M"ahlck. 2001. Mapping gender differences in scientific careers in social and bibliometric space. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 26, 2 (2001), 167--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Esperanza Marcos, Juan Manuel Vara, and Valeria de Castro. 2012. Author order: What science can learn from the arts. Commun. ACM, Vol. 55, 9 (2012), 39--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Richard F. Martell, David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich. 1996. Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist (Feb 1996), 157--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Elba Mauleón and Mar'ia Bordons. 2006. Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics, Vol. 66, 1 (2006), 199--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Peggy McIntosh. 2009. White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies. In Privilege and Prejudice: Twenty Years with the Invisible Knapsack, Karen Weekes (Ed.). Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 7--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, 41 (2012), 16474--16479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Brian Muller. 2014. Why I'm renaming a gem. http://findingscience.com/ruby/2014/11/17/why-im-renaming-a-gem.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jennifer C. Nash. 2008. Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, Vol. 89, 1 (2008), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. National Science Foundation. 2009. Responsible conduct of research. https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jspGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Paula Nicolson. 2015. Gender, power and organization: A psychological approach.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Joshua M. Paiz, Elizabeth Angeli, Jodi Wagner, Elena Lawrick, Kristen Moore, Michael Anderson, Lars Soderlund, Allen Brizee, and Russell Keck. 2014. APA style: In-text citations. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/03/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Emma Pierson. 2014. In science, it matters that women come last. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-science-it-matters-that-women-come-last/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Christina Richards, Walter Pierre Bouman, Leighton Seal, Meg John Barker, Timo O. Nieder, and Guy T'Sjoen. 2016. Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 28, 1 (2016), 95--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. Reflexivity in digital anthropology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 123--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Luisa Mart'in Rojo and Concepción Gómez Esteban. 2005. The gender of power: The female style in labour organizations. In Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse, , Michelle M. Lazar (Ed.). Springer, 61--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Mareva Sabatier, Myriam Carrere, and Vincent Mangematin. 2006. Profiles of academic activities and careers: Does gender matter? An analysis based on French life scientist CVs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, 3 (2006), 311--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Jessica Salvatore and J. Nicole Shelton. 2007. Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological science, Vol. 18, 9 (2007), 810--815.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Jeffrey C. Sandler and Brenda L. Russell. 2005. Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 15, 1 (2005), 65--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Heather Sarsons. 2017. Recognition for group work: Gender differences in academia. American Economic Review, Vol. 107, 5 (2017), 141--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Allison K. Shaw and Daniel E. Stanton. 2012. Leaks in the pipeline: Separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 279, 1743 (2012), 3736--3741.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Reena Sidhu, Praveen Rajashekhar, Victoria L. Lavin, Joanne Parry, James Attwood, Anita Holdcroft, and David S. Sanders. 2009. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: A study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 102, 8 (2009), 337--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Gerhard Sonnert and Gerald Holton. 1996. Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American Scientist, Vol. 84, 1 (1996), 63--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Steven J. Spencer, Claude M. Steele, and Diane M. Quinn. 1999. Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, 1 (1999), 4--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Steven Stack. 2002. Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 30, 3 (2002), 175--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69, 5 (1995), 797--811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, Vol. 41, 7--8 (1999), 509--528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Paula E. Stephen. 1987. Demographic and Economic Determinants of Scientific Productivity .Policy Research Program, College of Business Administration, Georgia State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Joanne Hoven Stohs. 2000. Multicultural women's experience of household labor, conflicts, and equity. Sex Roles, Vol. 42, 5--6 (2000), 339--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Derald Wing Sue. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation .John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Janet K. Swim and Lauri L. Hyers. 1999. Excuse me--What did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, 1 (1999), 68--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Ezequiel Tacsir, Matteo Grazzi, and Rafael Castillo. 2014. Women in science and technology: What does the literature say? Technical Report. Inter-American Development Bank.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Frances Trix and Carolyn Psenka. 2003. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, Vol. 14, 2 (2003), 191--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Teja Tscharntke, Michael E. Hochberg, Tatyana A. Rand, Vincent H. Resh, and Jochen Krauss. 2007. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol, Vol. 5, 1 (2007), e18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Lori Turk-Bicakci and Andrea Berger. 2014. Leaving STEM: STEM Ph.D. Holders in Non-STEM Careers. Issue Brief. American Institutes for Research (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Eric Luis Uhlmann and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2005. Constructed criteria redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, Vol. 16, 6 (2005), 474--480.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Virginia Valian. 2005. Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, Vol. 20, 3 (2005), 198--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society, Vol. 1, 2 (1987), 125--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Jevin D. West, Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PloS one, Vol. 8, 7 (2013), e66212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Joan Williams, Katherine W. Phillips, and Erika V. Hall. 2014. Double jeopardy?: Gender bias against women of color in science. http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/williams-double-jeopardy-report.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Roger B. Winston. 1985. A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 63, 8 (1985), 515--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Alison Wylie. 2011. What knowers know well: Women, work, and the academy. In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, 157--179.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Yu Xie and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review (1998), 847--870.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Iris Marion Young. 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference .Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Understanding Gender Equity in Author Order Assignment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!