{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02358926919518964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009250693802035153, 'mean_word_length': 5.515060240963855, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Publication Gender Gap, Collaboration, and an Index of Inclusion for Scholars Publishing Peer-Reviewed Research

Weknowthat a gender gap in publications exists. Previous research shows that female authors in international relations (IR) have fewer publications than male authors (Maliniak, Powers, and Walter 2013). However, this article offers a novel explanation for the outcome: inclusion in collaborative research practices has a large and significant part in fueling the gap. Female authors tend to include more new collaborators in their research projects than male authors. Moreover, whether because of the ensuant startup costs or other transaction costs associated with initiating new collaborations, female authors publish less. The result is not specific to women. In general, those authors who are more inclusive in their collaborations publish less than those who are more exclusive. Authors who repeatedly publish with the same coauthors have more articles than those with less exclusive collaborative networks. Inclusion negatively affects publishing success, as does collaboration more generally. The wider the network of collaborators, the more negative the impact on publishing success. These findings alignwith previous research suggesting that collaboration can be a double-edged sword, especially for female authors (Djupe, Smith, and Sokhey 2019; Lake 2010; Sarsons 2015; Teele and Thelen 2017). However, more frequent collaboration with new colleagues is particularly pernicious. Increasing inclusion by collaborating more frequently with new colleagues is detrimental to publication productivity; it also appears to correlate negatively with the quality of the journals. Those authors who publish in the high-impact, general political science journals include, on average, fewer new coauthors. The lowest rate applies to the political science flagship journals. As a result, women who tend to be more inclusive of new coauthors in their collaborations are subject to a gender gap in quantity and quality of publications, and they may be penalized on the job market for reappointment, tenure reviews, and even when applying for grants.