Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Women in Antiquity: An Analysis of Gender and Publishing in a Global Archaeology Journal

Hanscam, Emily, Witcher, Robert·2023·Journal of Field Archaeology
DOI 10.1080/00934690.2022.2143896
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies of archaeology publishing demonstrate a persistent imbalance in the ratio of male and female authors. We present an analysis of the world archaeology journal Antiquity using submissions and editorial decisions data (2015–2020). We identify a recurrent ratio of one female for every two male authors across measures including all listed authors, solo and first-named authors, and team authorship. Disaggregating author gender by country and region of corresponding author, however, reveals substantial variation, opening a new avenue for understanding of global trends in archaeology publishing. We also assess peer review and editorial decision-making in relation to author gender, finding no evidence of bias and, using the 2020 data, we look for any potential gendered impact of Covid-19, finding solo female authors may have been more affected than those working in teams. We contextualize the results in relation to initiatives to diversify authorship, including capacity-building programs for early career researchers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00934690.2022.2143896

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 1 Gender of published Antiquity article authors from 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020 (R. Witcher).
Figure 1 Gender of published Antiquity article authors from 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020 (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Gender of fi rst-named authors for articles published in select archaeology journals, 2007 -2016, based on survey responses reported in Heath-Stout 2020a (for journals with author responses totaling at least 4% of the overall dataset), plus data for Norwegian Archaeology Review (1968 -2008; Bjerck 2008); Journal of Roman Studies (2005 -2019; Kelly et al. 2019); Istanbuler Mitteilungen (1980 -2018) and Paléorient (1980 -2019; D ' Anna et al. 2021, table 4); and, Journal of Computational Applications in Archaeology (2019 -2021; Johnson 2022) (R. Witcher).
Figure 2 Gender of fi rst-named authors for articles published in select archaeology journals, 2007 -2016, based on survey responses reported in Heath-Stout 2020a (for journals with author responses totaling at least 4% of the overall dataset), plus data for Norwegian Archaeology Review (1968 -2008; Bjerck 2008); Journal of Roman Studies (2005 -2019; Kelly et al. 2019); Istanbuler Mitteilungen (1980 -2018) and Paléorient (1980 -2019; D ' Anna et al. 2021, table 4); and, Journal of Computational Applications in Archaeology (2019 -2021; Johnson 2022) (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Numbers of authors listed on Antiquity submissions 2015 -2020 (n = 1431) (R. Witcher).
Figure 3 Numbers of authors listed on Antiquity submissions 2015 -2020 (n = 1431) (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Female:male ratio of submitting authors, 2015 -2020: A) all listed authors; B) fi rst-named authors; and, C) solo authors, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).
Figure 4 Female:male ratio of submitting authors, 2015 -2020: A) all listed authors; B) fi rst-named authors; and, C) solo authors, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Map of female:male ratios of corresponding authors for 2015 -2020 submissions for the top 14 countries by number of submissions (R. Witcher).
Figure 5 Map of female:male ratios of corresponding authors for 2015 -2020 submissions for the top 14 countries by number of submissions (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 Female:male ratio of peer reviewers accepting invitation to review, 2015 -2020, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).
Figure 6 Female:male ratio of peer reviewers accepting invitation to review, 2015 -2020, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 7 Editorial decisions on female and male fi rst-authored papers expressed as a female:male ratio for A) minor and major revisions and B) reject before or after external review, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).
Figure 7 Editorial decisions on female and male fi rst-authored papers expressed as a female:male ratio for A) minor and major revisions and B) reject before or after external review, compared to mean, with upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL, respectively) at 2 standard deviations (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 8 Comparison of female:male ratios for submissions between 2015 and 2020 by four categories of authorship. 2020, the fi rst year of the pandemic, highlighted in yellow. Black bars indicate the six year mean female:male ratio for each category (R. Witcher).
Figure 8 Comparison of female:male ratios for submissions between 2015 and 2020 by four categories of authorship. 2020, the fi rst year of the pandemic, highlighted in yellow. Black bars indicate the six year mean female:male ratio for each category (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 9 Female:male ratio of invited respondents to debate pieces, 2015 -2021 (R. Witcher).
Figure 9 Female:male ratio of invited respondents to debate pieces, 2015 -2021 (R. Witcher).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 10 Example of Antiquity social media promotion (A. Benton).
Figure 10 Example of Antiquity social media promotion (A. Benton).CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Aitchison K., 2021, Profiling the Profession
  2. D’Anna M. B., 2021, Pearls, Politics and Pistachios: Essays in Anthropology and Memories on the Occasion of Susan Pollock’s 65th Birthday, 557
  3. Eve M. P., 2021, Reading Peer Review: PLOS ONE and Institutional Change in Academia
  4. Rautman A. E., 2012, SAA Archaeological Record, 12, 25

Cited by

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Hanscam, E., & Witcher, R.
Venue
Journal of Field Archaeology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-11-16
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
87-101
ISSN
  • 0093-4690
  • 2042-4582
DOI
10.1080/00934690.2022.2143896
Cited by
19
References
41
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • the Antiquity Trust
  • British Academy (WW2021100224)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.