Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
We study gender differences in the evaluation of submissions to economics conferences. Using data on more than 9,000 submissions from the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (2015–17), the Annual Meeting of the Spanish Economic Association (2012–17) and the Spring Meeting of Young Economists (2018), we find that all‐female‐authored papers are 3.3% points (p.p.), or 6.8%, less likely to be accepted than all‐male‐authored papers. The estimated gap ranges from 5.4 p.p. (95% CI: 2.5 p.p., 8.3 p.p.) to 2.9 p.p. (0 p.p., 5.8 p.p.). This gap is present after controlling for number of authors of the paper; field; referee fixed effects; cites of the paper; authors’ previous publication record, affiliations, and experience; and connections between the authors of a given paper and the referees that evaluate it. We provide evidence suggesting that the gap is driven by stereotypes against female authors: it is entirely driven by male referees, only exists for lesser‐known authors, and seems larger in more masculine fields, especially in finance.