Erin Hengel

Selected working papers

Gender and the time cost of peer review

with D. Alexander and O. Gorelkina

In this paper, we investigate one factor that can directly contribute to—as well as indirectly shed light on the other causes of—the gender gap in academic publications: time spent in peer review. To study our problem, we link administrative data from an economics field journal with bibliographic and demographic information on the articles and authors it publishes. Our results suggest that in each round of review, referees spend 4.4 more days reviewing female-authored papers and female authors spend 12.3 more days revising their manuscripts. However, both gender gaps decline—and eventually disappear—as the same referee reviews more papers. This pattern suggests novice referees initially statistically discriminate against female authors; as their information about and confidence in the refereeing process improves, however, the gender gaps fall.

Download the paper

Gender and equality at top economics journals

with E. Moon

Using (asinh) citations as a proxy for quality, we show that female-authored papers published in top economics journals are, on average, higher quality than male-authored papers. Furthermore, men and women publish higher quality papers when they co-author with women instead of men—for example, the same senior male economist receives about 60 log points more citations when he co-authors with a junior woman as opposed to a junior man. Finally, variance in quality is consistently higher among published male-authored papers. Under strong—but we believe reasonable—assumptions, we argue that these findings imply top economics journals hold female-authored papers to higher standards and, consequently, do not publish the highest quality research. Our results also suggest that popular proxies of academic impact discount women's contributions and that existing co-authoring relationships in economics under-exploit the capacity of female researchers.

Download the paper, read it online or read summaries in and the Royal Economic Society.

One strike and you’re out!

with O. Gorelkina and I. Grypari

We investigate the impact a straight-ticket voting option—a.k.a. the Master Lever—has on U.S. senators' roll-call voting records in Congress. Using a difference-in-differences framework, we find the Master Lever leads to a 3–6 percent rightward shift in senators' policy positions. The effect is largely driven by the Republican party. To interpret our results, we analyse the Master Lever's impact on electoral incentives and outcomes. Our findings suggest that ballot design has a non-negligible impact on policy-making. They also imply that electoral outcomes in moderate to right-leaning Master Lever states may be especially vulnerable to right-wing, non-partisan voters.

Download the paper or read it online.


The theory of straight ticket voting

with O. Gorelkina and I. Grypari. Social Choice and Welfare, 2022. (Forthcoming)

Download the paper.

Publishing while female

Economic Journal, 2022. (Forthcoming)

Download the paper, read a summary ( or browse the data.

An historical portrait of female economists' co-authorship networks

with S. L. Phythian-Adams. History of Political Economy, 2022. (Forthcoming)

Download the paper

The gender imbalance in UK economics

with V. Bateman, D. K. Gamage and X. Liu. Royal Economic Society Silver Anniversary Women's Committee Report.

Download the report.

Diversity in economics seminars: who gives invited talks?

with J. Doleac and E. Pancotti. AEA Papers & Proceedings, 2021. 111:55–59.

Download the paper or browse the data.

Gender issues in fundamental physics

with P. Ball, B. Britton, P. Moriarty, R. Oliver, G. Rippon, A. Saini and J. Wade. Quantitative Science Studies, 2021. 2(1): 263–272.

Download paper or the data and replication files.