Gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions in high-impact psychology journals.

Women comprise the majority of graduates from psychology doctoral programs, but equity is yet to be achieved in the professoriate. Publication drives career advancement, underscoring the need to investigate publication-based metrics of eminence. To our knowledge, authorship of invited submissions-a proxy of research esteem-has not been the focus of any psychology studies. In this cross-sectional study, authorship of invited submission(s) in five elite psychology journals (2015-2019) was investigated: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Annual Review of Psychology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, and Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented. Author gender was classified using publicly available details (e.g., pronouns on professional websites). Primary outcomes were the proportion of women solo-, first-, or likely invited authors, relative to the proportion of women full and associate professors in psychology at R1 institutions (42.3%). Of 1,828 authorship positions (713 articles), 35.6% were occupied by women. Relative to the nominated base rate, women were disproportionately underrepresented. When the likely invited author on a multi-author publication was a woman, the first author was a woman on 51.0% of papers; when the likely invited author was a man, the first author was a woman on 34.1% of papers. These findings align with prior studies and extend the research by demonstrating that the gender publication gap in psychology is exacerbated in invited submissions and driven by particular subfields. Continued efforts are needed to redress gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Probabilistic approaches do not invalidate descriptive studies but answer fundamentally different questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023).

Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research question from the one we proposed. We thank Loh and Ren (2023) for their constructive contributions to this dialogue. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).