Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/92186
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studiesen_US
dc.creatorCuskley, Cen_US
dc.creatorRoberts, SGen_US
dc.creatorPolitzer-Ahles, Sen_US
dc.creatorVerhoef, Ten_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-18T01:58:18Z-
dc.date.available2022-02-18T01:58:18Z-
dc.identifier.issn2058-4571en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/92186-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.rightsThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Journal of Language Evolution following peer review. The version of record Christine Cuskley, Seán G Roberts, Stephen Politzer-Ahles, Tessa Verhoef, Double-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences: An update, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 92–99, is available online at: https://academic.oup.com/jole/article/5/1/92/5586645, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz007.en_US
dc.subjectConferenceen_US
dc.subjectEvoLangen_US
dc.subjectGender biasen_US
dc.titleDouble-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences : an updateen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage92en_US
dc.identifier.epage99en_US
dc.identifier.volume5en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jole/lzz007en_US
dcterms.abstractA previous study of reviewing at the Evolution of Language conferences found effects that suggested that gender bias against female authors was alleviated under double-blind review at EvoLang 11. We update this analysis in two specific ways. First, we add data from the most recent EvoLang 12 conference, providing a comprehensive picture of the conference over five iterations. Like EvoLang 11, EvoLang 12 used double-blind review, but EvoLang 12 showed no significant difference in review scores between genders. We discuss potential explanations for why there was a strong effect in EvoLang 11, which is largely absent in EvoLang 12. These include testing whether readability differs between genders, though we find no evidence to support this. Although gender differences seem to have declined for EvoLang 12, we suggest that double-blind review provides a more equitable evaluation process.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of language evolution, Jan. 2020, v. 5, no. 1, p. 92-99en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of language evolutionen_US
dcterms.issued2020-01-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85086022790-
dc.identifier.eissn2058-458Xen_US
dc.description.validate202202 bcvcen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera1163-n02, CBS-0149en_US
dc.identifier.SubFormID44038-
dc.description.fundingSourceSelf-fundeden_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS23634431en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Robertsetal2020EvoLang.pdfPre-Published version1.41 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

67
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

Downloads

81
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
Citations as of Jul 3, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
Citations as of Oct 10, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.