The Role of Reviewer Characteristics on the Diversity of Successful Applicants

References

• Abrevaya J, Hamermesh DS (2012) Charity and favoritism in the field: Are female economists nicer (to each other)? Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(1):202–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aneja A, Reshef O, Subramani G (2024) Attrition and the gender innovation gap: Evidence from patent applications. Rev. Econom. Statist., 1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arceo-Gomez EO, Campos-Vazquez RM (2022) Gender bias in evaluation processes. Econom. Ed. Rev. 89:102272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Axt JR, Lai CK (2019) Reducing discrimination: A bias versus noise perspective. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 117(1):26–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagues M, Sylos-Labini M, Zinovyeva N (2017) Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter? Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(4):1207–1238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bargh JA (1994) The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK, eds. Handbook of Social Cognition (Psychology Press, New York), 1–40.Google Scholar
• Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(2):230–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Ganglmair B, Persico N, Simcoe T, Tarantino E (2024) Representation is not sufficient for selecting gender diversity. Res. Policy 53(6):104994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartoš V, Bauer M, Chytilová J, Matějka F (2016) Attention discrimination: Theory and field experiments with monitoring information acquisition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(6):1437–1475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benson A, Li D, Shue K (2024) Potential and the gender promotions gap. Working paper, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-Saint Paul.Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E (2017) Field experiments on discrimination. Banerjee AV, Duflo E, eds. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, vol. 1 (North Holland, Amsterdam), 309–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodenhausen GV (2000) Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics: Evidence of circadian variations in discrimination. Stangor C, ed. Stereotypes and Prejudice: Essential Readings (Psychology Press, New York), 254–258.Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (2014) A dual process model of impression formation. Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK, eds. Advances in Social Cognition, vol. I (Psychology Press, New York), 1–36.Google Scholar
• Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ (2008) Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecology Evolution 23(1P4-6):4–6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell EL, Hahl O (2022) He’s overqualified, she’s highly committed: Qualification signals and gendered assumptions about job candidate commitment. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2451–2476.Link, Google Scholar
• Campero S, Fernandez RM (2019) Gender composition of labor queues and gender disparities in hiring. Soc. Forces 97(4):1487–1516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadevall A, Handelsman J (2014) The presence of female conveners correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. MBio 5(1).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castilla EJ, Rho HJ (2023) The gendering of job postings in the online recruitment process. Management Sci. 69(11):6912–6939.Link, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta N, Asgari S (2004) Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 40(5):642–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Paola M, Scoppa V (2015) Gender discrimination and evaluators’ gender: Evidence from Italian academia. Economica 82(325):162–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Jahedi S (2015) The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. Eur. Econom. Rev. 78:97–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devine PG (1989) Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 56(18):5–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devine PG, Sharp LB (2009) Automaticity and control in stereotyping and prejudice. Nelson TD, ed. Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (Psychology Press, New York), 61–87.Google Scholar
• Ding WW, Murray F, Stuart TE (2006) Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 313(5787):665–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ditto PH, Lopez DF (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 63(4):568–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL (2000) Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psych. Sci. 11(4):315–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSB, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 8(3):223–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farre-Mensa J, Hegde D, Ljungqvist A (2020) What is a patent worth? Evidence from the U.S. patent “lottery.” J. Finance 75(2):639–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fazio RH, Olson MA (2003) Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annu. Rev. Psych. 54:297–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferguson JP, Carnabuci G (2017) Risky recombinations: Institutional gatekeeping in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(1):133–151.Link, Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo I, Rubineau B, Kuppuswamy V (2023) Reject and resubmit: A formal analysis of gender differences in reapplication and their contribution to women’s presence in talent pipelines. Organ. Sci. 34(4):1554–1576.Link, Google Scholar
• Frakes MD, Wasserman MF (2017) Is the time allocated to review patent applications inducing examiners to grant invalid patents? Evidence from microlevel application data. Rev. Econom. Statist. 99(3):550–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frakes MD, Wasserman MF (2020) Procrastination at the patent office? J. Public Econom. 183:104140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frietsch R, Haller I, Funken-Vrohlings M, Grupp H (2009) Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Res. Policy 38(4):590–599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT, Hixon JG (1991) The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 60(4):509–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham SJ, Marco AC, Miller R (2018) The USPTO patent examination research dataset: A window on patent processing. Econom. Management Strategy 27(3):554–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guzman J, Kacperczyk AO (2019) Gender gap in entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 48(7):1666–1680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hengel E (2022) Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. Econom. J. 132(648):2951–2991.Google Scholar
• Hilton JL, Von Hippel W (1996) Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psych. 47:237–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA (2020) The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117:9284–9291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hosler L (2018) Mind the gap—The USPTO’s efforts to narrow the gender gap in patenting and innovation. Tech. Innovation 19(4):759–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hospido L, Sanz C (2021) Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: Evidence from submissions to economics conferences. Oxford Bull. Econom. Statist. 83(3):590–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang R, Mayer EJ, Miller DP (2024) Gender bias in promotions: Evidence from financial institutions. Rev. Financial Stud. 37(5):1685–1728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunt J (2016) Why do women leave science and engineering. ILR Rev. 69(1):199–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunt J, Garant J-P, Herman H, Munroe DJ (2013) Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees? Res. Policy 42(4):831–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen K, Kovács B, Sorenson O (2018) Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights. Nat. Biotechnol. 36:307–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn S, Ginther D (2018) Women and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Are differences in education and careers due to stereotypes, interests, or family? Averett SL, Argys LM, Hoffman SD, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy, Oxford Handbooks (Oxford Academic, Oxford, UK), 767–798.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (MacMillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Kanze D, Huang L, Conley MA, Higgins ET (2018) We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Acad. Management J. 61(2):586–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keinan G (1987) Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under controllable and uncontrollable threats. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 52(3):639–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller J (2005) In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 88(4):686–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koning R, Samila S, Ferguson JP (2021) Who do we invent for? Patents by women focus more on women’s health, but few women get to invent. Science 372(6548):1345–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lane JN, Lakhani KR, Fernandez RM (2023) Setting gendered expectations? Recruiter outreach bias in online tech training programs. Organ. Sci. 35(3):911–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Sampat B (2012) Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(3):817–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitskaya E, Kedrick K, Funk RJ (2022) Investigating writing style as a contributor to gender gaps in science and technology. Preprint, submitted April 28, https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.13805.Google Scholar
• Lewicki P (1983) Self-image bias in person perception. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 45(2):384–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu HH (2021) Masked evaluations: The role of gender homophily. J. Legal Stud. 50(2):303–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lozano L, Ranehill E, Reuben E (2022) Gender and preferences in the labor market: Insights from experiments. Zimmermann KF, ed. Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics (Springer, Basel), 1–34.Google Scholar
• Madl AC, Ouellette LL (2019) Policy experiments to address gender inequality among innovators. Houston Law Rev. 57(4):813–841.Google Scholar
• Marco AC, Toole A, Miller R, Frumkin J (2017) USPTO patent prosecution and examiner performance appraisal. Preprint, submitted June 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2995674.Google Scholar
• Maule AJ, Hockey GRJ, Bdzola L (2000) Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psych. 104(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meng Y (2016) Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions. Res. Policy 45(1):56–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mengel F (2020) Gender differences in networking. Econom. J. 130(630):1842–1873.Google Scholar
• Mengel F (2021) Gender bias in opinion aggregation. Internat. Econom. Rev. 62(3):1055–1080.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milli J, Gault B, Williams-Baron E, Xia J, Berlan M (2016) The gender patenting gap. Report, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Monteith MJ, Ashburn-Nardo L, Voils CI, Czopp AM (2002) Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 83(5):1029–1050.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moran TP (2016) Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psych. Bull. 142(8):831–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J (2012) Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(41):16474–16479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murray D, Siler K, Larivière V, Chan WM, Collings AM, Raymond J, Sugimoto CR (2019) Author-reviewer homophily in peer review. Preprint, submitted August 4, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/400515v3.full.Google Scholar
• Narayan A (2024) The impact of financial stress on workplace harassment and discrimination. Management Sci. 70(4):2447–2458.Link, Google Scholar
• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021. Technical Report NSF 21-321, National Science Foundation. Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PW (2016) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J, eds. Cognitive Load Theory (Routledge, New York), 63–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pairolero N, Toole A, DeGrazia C, Teodorescu MH, Pappas PA (2022) Closing the gender gap in patenting: Evidence from a randomized control trial at the USPTO. Acad. Management Proc. 2022(1):14401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips-Wren G, Adya M (2020) Decision making under stress: The role of information overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty. J. Decision Systems 29:213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plant EA, Devine PG (1998) Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(3):811–832.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratto F, Bargh JA (1991) Stereotyping based on apparently individuating information: Trait and global components of sex stereotypes under attention overload. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 27(1):26–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Righi C, Simcoe T (2019) Patent examiner specialization. Res. Policy 48(1):137–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers RD, Monsell S (1995) Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. J. Experiment. Psych. General 124(2):207–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rooth DO (2010) Automatic associations and discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence. Labour Econom. 17(3):523–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaw E, Mariano H (2021) Tackling the gender and racial patenting gap to drive innovation. Report, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Sherman JW, Lee AY, Bessenoff GR, Frost LA (1998) Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 75(3):589–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siniscalchi M, Veronesi P (2021) Self-image bias and lost talent. NBER Working Paper No. 28308, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Snellman K, Solal I (2023) Does investor gender matter for the success of female entrepreneurs? Gender homophily and the stigma of incompetence in entrepreneurial finance. Organ. Sci. 34(2):680–699.Link, Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Fein S, Wolfe CT, Fong C, Duinn MA (1998) Automatic activation of stereotypes: The role of self-image threat. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 24(11):1139–1152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprenger AM, Dougherty MR, Atkins SM, Franco-Watkins AM, Thomas RP, Lange N, Abbs B (2011) Implications of cognitive load for hypothesis generation and probability judgment. Front. Psych. 2(129).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stanley D, Phelps E, Banaji M (2008) The neural basis of implicit attitudes. Curr. Directions Psych. Sci. 17(2):164–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stepanikova I (2012) Racial-ethnic biases, time pressure, and medical decisions. J. Health Soc. Behav. 53(3):329–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sugimoto CR, Ni C, West JD, Lariviére V (2015) The academic advantage: Gender disparities in patenting. PLoS One 10(5):e0128000.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thursby J, Thursby M (2005) Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. J. Tech. Transfer 30:343–353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toole AA, Saksena MJ, Degrazia CA, Black KP, Lissoni F, Miguelez E, Tarasconi G (2021) Progress and potential: 2020 update on US women inventor-patentees. Technical report, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Chief Economist IP DATA HIGHLIGHTS, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• UKIPO (2019) Gender profiles in worldwide patenting: An analysis of female inventorship. Report, UK Intellectual Property Office, Newport, UK.Google Scholar
• Van Knippenberg AD, Dijksterhuis AP, Vermeulen D (1999) Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 29(2–3):191–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheeler SC, Petty RE (2001) The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psych. Bull. 127(6):797–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whittington K (2011) Mothers of invention? Gender, motherhood, and new dimensions of productivity in the science profession. Work Occupations 38(3):417–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wickens CD (2002) Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Curr. Directions Psych. Sci. 11(4):128–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiese H, Schweinberger SR, Neumann MF (2008) Perceiving age and gender in unfamiliar faces: Brain potential evidence for implicit and explicit person categorization. Psychophysiology 45(6):957–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C (2019) Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 393(10171):531–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Tian TY, Woodruff TK, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2022) Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(36):e2200841119.Google Scholar