Our study is now closed and we are ready to share the findings.

FULL DESCRIPTION AND THE RESULTS FROM THE STUDY CAN BE FOUND IN OUR WORKING PAPER HERE!

OUR STRATEGY: Measure differences in reactions to a hypothetical editorial decision letter

• Randomized outcome: Weak R&R vs. reject & resubmit (RJR) vs. flat reject (FR)

• Also randomize number of previous rejections for the given submission (0 or 1)

MAIN FINDINGS:

• Negative feedback (FR, RJR) reduces confidence in the ability to publish the hypothetical paper in any leading journal relative to R&R (not surprising!)

  • Female assistant professors are 18 pp more discouraged than male assistant professors by the rejection relative to R&R

  • No gender gap among associate and full professors

POTENTIAL MECHANISMS BEHIND THE FINDINGS:

• Female assistant professors attribute the negative feedback of a rejection to subpar quality of their work to a greater extent than men do, and this is exacerbated by the time constraint of an upcoming review.

  • The gender gap among assistant professors is driven by respondents who have 2-3 years until tenure review (time constraint)

  • Women whose papers are rejected are more likely to revise them extensively than men are, relative to an R&R, pointing to lower confidence in the quality of the paper in its current form.

• What we rule out:

  • gender differences in submission quality, size of one’s network, and the number of authors on the paper, by design (holding these factors constant within gender due to randomization)

  • see full paper for other explanations