518

Bias in Publishing?Gender Trends in Academic Library and Information Science Monograph Publications

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius*

IntroductionFor academic librarians, especially those in tenure-track positions, publishing is a necessity for tenure and pro-motion. While librarians and other information professionals publish in a number of formats, the publication of a scholarly monograph is undoubtably one of the highest levels of achievement and generally well regarded in the tenure and promotion process. As librarians, we understand that the monograph publication process and monograph publishers themselves can be skewed toward particular viewpoints and that these biases can limit the topics and types of items that are published, as well as who gets published. Although a lot of literature has been completed on gender biases in academic publishing, not many have examined monograph publications and none have looked specifically at library and information science (LIS) monographs. This study seeks to fill that gap through a critical look at the publication trends of academic LIS monographs, and more specifically, the gender of creators (authors and editors). The study addresses the following questions:

• Is there a gender gap in LIS scholarly monograph publishing? If so, what does it look like?• How does gender affect co-creatorship (co-authored or co-edited works) in LIS scholarly monograph

publishing?• Does gender have an effect on the topics published in LIS scholarly monograph publishing?

Literature ReviewGender and CreatorshipStudies on the genders of creators in academic monograph publishing are extremely limited, but they all indicate that women lag behind men as creators of books. A study of edited books in political sciences indicated that of the 78 monographs published between 1995-1997, 88% of the authors in the edited works were male.1 Another study of 1,367 University of Helsinki scholars between 2002-2004 in all different disciplines found that men published an average of 1.9 times more monographs than their women colleagues.2 Further, even in a field such as English where, since 1987, more women have received PhDs than men, it was discovered that the male faculty members at the top 50 US English PhD departments published more scholarly books (authored and edited) on a per capita basis than their female peers.3

While research into academic book publishing and gender has been limited, there are a host of studies on gen-der and periodical articles output. Studies in the last few decades on the gender of authors in periodicals have in-dicated that, as in academic monograph publishing, men publish more than their female peers, even in disciplines that are not dominated by men such as natural and biological sciences, humanities and creative arts, and social and applied sciences.4 In LIS specifically, findings in studies also indicate a greater representation of male voices as

* Ngoc-Yen Tran, Research Impact Librarian, San Jose State University, yen.tran@sjsu.edu. Erin Nevius, Content Strategist, ACRL, enevius@ala.org

authors or editors. One of the earliest studies on author gender in LIS periodicals publishing was published in the late 1970s by Ollsgard and Ollsgard, who analyzed ten-year spans of five periodicals including College & Research Libraries, Library Journal, Library Quarterly, Library Trends, and RQ. The researchers found that, although women made up 84% of the LIS profession at the time, the representation of women in the five periodicals ranged from 21.2% to 41.3%.5 That male librarians published more than female librarians held true even when Olsgaard and Ol-sgaard examined academic librarians and library science faculty, who are often required to publish research.6 Other studies since have analyzed specific LIS journals and core groupings of LIS journals, and across different types of authors and publications the research continued to find that men publish more in LIS periodicals than their female colleagues.7,8,9,10 Even so, there have been findings that indicate the opposite. Adamson and Zamora found that women published more when it was topics related to special and medical libraries,11 and a study of 16 library peri-odicals of different types and topics from 1987-1989 by Buttlar indicated that a majority of authors were female.12

Gender and CollaborationStudies have shown that research collaborations are now a common occurrence in all disciplines.13,14 In LIS, the rising trend of academic research collaborations was demonstrated by Cline and Terry who, separately and at different times, analyzed the articles in College & Research Libraries (C&RL). Cline indicated that between 1939-1944 less than 5% of the articles in C&RL were co-authored;15 Terry continued Cline’s study 15 years later and showed that co-authored articles continually increased to almost 60% for articles published between 1989-1994.16 In a more recent study, Luo and McKinney found that the majority of the articles published in The Journal of Academic Librarianship (JAL) from 2004-2013 were co-authored (54.3%).17 Studies of group-ings of LIS journals, both academic and non-academic, also concluded that LIS research was increasingly more collaborative.18,19,20,21,22

It is likely that the rise of collaborative works has contributed to the continual increase of literature created by women. Women have shown a tendency to collaborate with others,23,24 especially with other women. Mathews and Andersen’s study of edited political science books found that, when there was a female editor or co-editor, 48% of the authors were also female, as opposed to only 15% when none of the editors were female.25 In LIS, Terry’s analysis of College & Research Libraries articles from 1989-1994 showed that of the 243 co-authors, 55% of the co-authors were female.26 Additionally, of the co-authored titles, 56% had at least one male and one female author, and 26% had all female co-authors.27

Gender and Research TopicsStudies on what female academics choose to pursue have indicated that research topics are gendered and that men and women publish on, or are more interested in researching, topics stereotypically associated with their gender or gender attributes.28,29,30,31,32 Studies generally indicate that topics categorized as “feminine” are those that deal more with people and relationships, while “masculine” topics are associated with things.33,34,35 The gen-der of librarians and the topics that they investigate in LIS literature has not been explored deeply, but there is at least one example. Buttlar’s study of 16 journals found that women wrote mostly about children’s and young adults’ services (90.91%) and bibliographic information/information literacy (83.67%), and men wrote on docu-ment retrieval (100%), library history (83.33%), and international librarianship (75.76%).36 In addition, some conclusions about gender and topic selection can be made based on publishing trends in specific journals. Re-search indicated that even as more men were publishing LIS articles, women authors were the majority in jour-nals such as the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association37 and School Library Media Quarterly.38 All of these findings indicate that female librarians are writing on topics that are more stereotypically aligned to their gender.

Bias in Publishing

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

519

MethodologyWe began our study by identifying the major LIS academic monograph publishers; one of the researchers works in LIS publishing and is familiar with the LIS publishing industry. The eight monograph publishers were: ACRL, ALA Editions, Chandos, Facet, Libraries Unlimited, Library Juice, McFarland, and Rowman & Littlefield. To help us identify changes in recent trends over time, we collected information on titles published from 2015-2017 on topics that would be of interest to academic librarians. We narrowed the titles to those written in English.

The data collection was evenly divided between the two researchers, four publishers each for all three years of the study. We agreed that we would compile our list of monographs by reviewing publisher catalogs (if avail-able) and websites for the years of the study. For publishers with catalogs, some titles may not have been released until after the printing of their 2017 catalog, so we also examined 2018 catalogs to make sure all titles published in 2017 were recorded. All of the relevant titles that fit the criteria of our study were collected in a Google Sheet and available to both researchers at any time.

To ensure uniformity in data collection between the two researchers, each data point had a corresponding explanation or process; we have included only the relevant data points for this paper in Table 1. For example, to determine the correct author gender as identified by the author themselves, we examined author biographies or conducted web searches to look for pronouns. For data points that necessitated a selection from a list of op-tions, definitions were provided (Table 2). Both the process and definitions were available in the Google Sheet for quick referral.

TABLE 1Data points collected and explanation or process for collection

Data Point Explanation or Process

Topics (primary and secondary)

Overall general topic based off of the description provided for the monograph. Select from a dropdown menu of options.

Creator name General term for the person who created the work. Could include authored works, edited works, revised works, etc.

Creator affiliation Found in biography linked to the description for the monograph. Could include academic institution, corporation, business, etc. May be left blank if no affiliation.

Creator gender Look at pronouns on the biographies supplied with the title and/or via web searches for other biographies of the author(s). If an association or business, assign no gender.

Description of monograph Gathered from the publisher webpages

TABLE 2Definitions for topic designation

Data Point Definition

Topics (primary and secondary)

Research Support (includes subject liaison): Materials relating to aspects of research support except for teaching, reference, or collection development. Can also be materials supporting subject liaison librarians.Teaching/Instruction/Education: Materials relating to aspects of teaching, instruction, or education in general. Can include topics such as consultations or one-shots of subject liaisons.Reference: Materials relating to the act of providing reference services by librarians or library staff.Collection Development: Materials relating to the act of developing a collection for the library (includes print and online); includes cataloging and deselection of materialsLeadership/Management/Administration: Materials relating to the administration and management of libraries. Can also include materials on leadership or taking a lead.

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

520

Once we collected all monograph titles that fit our criteria for inclusion, we checked each other’s lists against holdings in Worldcat (https://www.worldcat.org/) and Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/) by searching for publishers and limiting to monographs published between 2015-2017. In analyzing the collected data, we down-loaded the Google Sheet into an Excel Spreadsheet and used Microsoft Excel.

Results and DiscussionFor the years 2015-2017, we identified 431 titles on all topics of interest to academic librarians across the eight major LIS publishers. There was a total of 678 creators (a general term we used for authors and editors). Distribu-tion of the number of titles and creators by year and the total for the three years can be found in Table 3.

Gender and CreatorshipUnlike some of the previous research indicating that, in both male-dominated and non-male-dominated dis-ciplines, the majority of scholarly publications are by men,39,40 our study found that in the female-dominated profession of librarianship, the majority of scholarly monographs have been created or co-created by women. An aggregate of all three years showed that female creators made up 63% of all creators (Table 4). This percentage was similar when we analyzed first listed creators, where 60.8% were female (Table 5). An examination of the distribu-tion of creators, total number as well as first listed creators, showed that in both situations, women’s contributions to LIS books increased year over year while men’s contributions decreased year over year (Table 4 and Table 5).

TABLE 2Definitions for topic designation

Data Point Definition

Topics (primary and secondary)

Data/Technology: Materials relating to all topics related to data and technology, including their collection, dissemination, or use.Museums/Archives: Materials relating to all aspects related to the work of museums, archives, and other special libraries.Scholarly Communication: Materials relating to the collection, dissemination, and use of research and scholarship.Outreach/Partnerships/Collaborations: Materials relating to library outreach, partnerships, and collaborations in the library and externally.Professional Development: Materials that support the professional development of librarians.

TABLE 3 Distribution of titles and creators

2015 2016 2017 Year Total

Count of Titles 139 146 146 431Count of Creators 213 231 234 678

TABLE 4Distribution of all creators by gender

2015n=213

2016n=231

2017n=234

2015–2017n=678

Female Creator 55.9% 64.9% 67.5% 63.0%Male Creator 43.7% 34.2% 32.5% 32.3%No Gender Creator**Professional Association

0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.4%

Bias in Publishing

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

521

We compared the percentages of LIS monograph creators to national percentages of gender in librarianship and found that, even though there were more women monograph creators than men, there was a gender gap and men were more heavily represented in LIS academic monograph literature than they were in the profession. Definitive demographic data of academic librarians is sparse, but unpublished data from the 2015 and 2018 ACRL membership surveys indicated that the female academic librarian population was steady at 77% of survey respondents for both years.41 When compared with our data, assuming that ACRL membership numbers stay at around 77% female from 2015-2017, there is at least a 9% gender gap where male voices were more represented in LIS monographs. Broader demographic data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that women made up 79-83% of librarians,42 showing a 10-27% gender gap depending on year (Figure 1). Our findings sug-gest that this gender gap is closing and monograph works created by women are becoming more aligned with the total population of female librarians.

Gender and CollaborationsOf the 183 collaboratively created works, there were 250 collaborators total; 168 (67.2%) were women, indicat-ing that a large number of women collaborated on LIS monograph publishing projects. Women’s willingness to collaborate was seen most prominently when a woman was leading the collaboration. 122 titles listed the first creator as a woman, and these women chose to collaborate with another person or entity, regardless of gender, 46.6% of the time (Table 6). Women listed as the first creator worked with 167 collaborators over 122 titles, mak-

TABLE 5Distribution of first creators by gender

2015n=139

2016n=146

2017n=146

2015–2017n=431

Female First Creator 53.2% 63.7% 65.1% 60.8%Male First Creator 46.8% 36.3% 34.9% 39.2%

FIGURE 1Comparison of percentage of national female librarians to percentage of female monograph creators by year

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

522

ing an average of 1.37 contributors per title; men worked with 83 collaborators over 61 titles, an average of 1.36 contributors per title. Yearly trends comparing co-created monograph works by the gender of the first creator showed that women were increasingly leading collaborative book projects, while there was a decrease in men leading collaborative book projects (Figure 2).

Besides being more likely to collaborate as first creators, women also tended to work with other women. Of the 183 co-created titles, more than half (54.1% or 99 titles) were created solely by two or more women creators (Table 7). Of the 122 titles where the first creator was a woman, the second creator was also a woman 72.7% of the time (Table 8). For men, when they collaborated, a woman was their second creator 57.3% of the time, and male-only created titles attributed for only 11.5% of all co-created titles (Table 8).

Although research collaborations in LIS periodicals literature are common,43,44 co-created LIS monographs are less common at 42.5%; both men and women tended to individually create titles. Nevertheless, these findings on gender and collaborations mirror some aspects of the

FIGURE 2Comparison of co-created works by gender of first creator

TABLE 6Single and co-created titles and gender of first or solo author

Solo Created Titles Co-Created Titles Total Titles

Female 140 (53.4%) 122 (46.6%) 262Male 108 (83.9%) 61 (36.1%) 169All Gender 248 (57.5%) 183 (42.5%) 431

TABLE 7Majority or one-gender-only titles,

all three years of study

Co-Created Titles (n=183)

Women-only Titles Men-only Titles

84 titles (45.9%)21 titles (11.5%)

Women Majority TitlesMen Majority TitlesEqual Women and Men Titles

99 titles* (54.1%)32 titles* (17.5%)49 titles** (26.8%)

*Total includes women-only/male-only titles**Total excludes titles where there is a creator with no gender denoted

Bias in Publishing

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

523

studies on periodicals publishing: Women are more likely to lead a collaborative LIS book publishing project, work with slightly more collaborators when they do, and lean toward working with other women.45,46,47 Mathews and Andersen’s study of edited political science books and gender specu-lated that contributions for edited works were often based on connections among scholars; this may also be the case in selection of monograph contributions and collaborators.

Gender and topic of researchOur research divided LIS books published for a primarily academic audience into 10 main general topics: Research Support; Teaching/Instruction/Education; Reference; Collection Development; Leadership/Man-agement/Administration; Data/Technology; Museums/Archives; Scholarly Communication; Outreach/Part-nerships/Collaborations; and Professional Development. We found that the topics of leadership and library ad-ministration/management (111 titles), data and technology (91 titles), and teaching, instruction, or education (70 titles) made up more than ⅔ of the primary topics published (Figure 3).

Female creators and co-creators made up the majority of authors and editors for all topic categories we identified. Of the three highest represented topics, the greatest gender gap was seen in monographs on teaching, instruction, or education (Figure 4).

While women are more likely to be the primary creator of LIS books on all topics, they are much more likely to be the primary creator of works on Professional Development (76.92%), Reference (75%), and Teach-ing/Instruction/Education (72.86%). Museums/Archives (58.33%), Leadership/Management/Administration (55.86%), Scholarly Communication (52.94%), and Data/Technology (52.75%) are closer to having an equal number of female and male primary creators (Figure 5).

FIGURE 3Distribution of topics for all titles published in 2015-2017

TABLE 8Male and female collaborations by first creator,

all three years of study

Female First Creator Female Second CreatorMale Second Creator

122 titles88 titles (72.7%)34 titles (27.3%)

Male First CreatorFemale Second CreatorMale Second Creator

61 titles35 titles (57.3%)26 titles (42.7%)

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

524

FIGURE 4Gender of primary creators by topic

FIGURE 5Percentage of genders of primary creators by topic

Bias in Publishing

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

525

Our data indicates that gender could impact the published topics in LIS books. By the number of titles published, the top two topic areas from 2015 through 2017 were Leadership/Management/Administration (111 titles) and Data/Technology (91 titles). 202 of 431 LIS monographs for academic librarians, or 46.87%, fell un-der these topics, which both have a close to equal number of female and male primary creators. Judging the impact of gender on the topics of published LIS monographs is complicated by the publisher’s concern for the marketplace: Published monographs represent both what the authors want to write about as well as what topics the publishers think will sell.

Limitations of StudyWe acknowledge the limited years of the study which may make it difficult to determine long-term trends, but believe that even with this limitation, the study fills in a research gap in understanding LIS monograph publishing.

ConclusionOur study aimed to answer questions related to gender and creatorship, gender and collaborations, and gender and research topics in LIS monograph publishing. The data we collected showed that in the female-dominated profession of librarianship, the majority of scholarly monograph works have been created or co-created by wom-en. Even so, there is an overrepresentation of publications by men when compared to the overall demographics of librarianship. The data also showed that women are more likely to lead a collaborative LIS book publishing project, work with slightly more collaborators when they do, and lean toward working with other women. Addi-tionally, women and men publish on different topics, and data indicates that gender could impact the published topics in LIS books.

We recognize that there are social and economic forces that encourage and motivate librarians to pub-lish a monograph, and that the same forces are considerations for publishers when determining whether or not to accept a monograph for publication. Therefore, more work is needed in understanding LIS monograph publications. One area of future investigation includes the potential of LIS monograph publishing bias against historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups; gender or sexual identities and expressions; nationality or language; those who experience socio-economic barriers; and people geographically isolated. Another area of investigation could look at the correspondence of changing trends in LIS publishing to trends in the profession of librarianship.

Endnotes1. A. Lanethea Mathews and Kristi Andersen, “A Gender Gap in Publishing? Women’s Representation in Edited Political Science

Books,” PS: Political Science & Politics, 34 no. 1 (2001): 146.2. Hanna-Mari Puuska, “Effects of Scholar’s Gender and Professional Position on Publishing Productivity in Different Publication

Types: Analysis of a Finnish University,” Scientometrics, 82 no. 2 (2009): 433.3. Nicole Benevento, Albert N. Greco, Toniann Pasqueralle, Clara Rodriguez, Francesca Russo, Alana M. Spendley, Kelly Sullivan,

Yiming Sun, and Robert M. Wharton, “Who Publishes More Books in U.S. English Departments, Men or Women?,” Publishing Research Quarterly, 33 no. 4 (2017): 367.

4. Sarah Theule Lubienski, Emily K. Miller, and Evthokia Stephanie Saclarides, “Sex Differences in Doctoral Student Publication Rates,” Educational Researcher 47 no. 1 (2018): 79.

5. John N. Olsgaard, and Jane Kinch Olsgaard, “Authorship in Five Library Periodicals,” College & Research Libraries 41 no. 1 (1980): 50.

6. Olsgaard and Olsgaard, 50-51.7. Gloria S. Cline, “College & Research Libraries: Its First Forty Years,” College & Research Libraries 43 no. 3 (1982): 214. 8. James L. Terry, “Authorship in College & Research Libraries Revisited: Gender, Institutional Affiliation, Collaboration,” College &

Research Libraries 57 no. 4 (1996): 380-381.9. Thomas E. Nisonger, “Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 20, no. 4 (1996), 409.

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

526

10. Celia Sánchez Peñas, and Peter Willett, “Brief Communication: Gender Differences in Publication and Citation Counts in Librari-anship and Information Science Research,” Journal of Information Science 32 no. 5 (2006): 482.

11. Matthew Adamson and Gloria J. Zamora, “Publishing in Library Science Journals: A Test of the Olsgaard Profile,” College & Re-search Libraries, 42 no. 3 (1981): 237.

12. Lois Buttlar, “Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship,” College and Research Libraries 52 no. 1 (1991): 41.

13. Sally Jo Cunningham and S.M. Dillon, “Authorship Patterns in Information Systems,” Scientometrics 39, no. 1 (1997), 25. 14. Dorte Henriksen, “The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013),” Scientometrics 107 (2016), 471. 15. Cline, 214.16. Terry, 381.17. Lili Luo and Margaret McKinney, “JAL in the Past Decade: A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic

Library Research,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41 (2015): 125.18. Deborah D. Blecic, Stephen E. Wiberley Jr., Sandra L. De Groote, John Cullars, Mary Shultz, and Vivian Chan, “Publication Pat-

terns of U.S. Academic Librarians and Libraries from 2003-2012,” College & Research Libraries 78, no. 4 (2017), 448.19. Buttlar, 41. 20. Paramjeet Kaur Walia and Manpreet Kaur, “Authorship Pattern in Library and Information Science Journal Literature,” Information

Studies 18, no. 3 (2012), 167.21. Yu-Wei Chang, “Characteristics of Articles Coauthored by Researchers and Practitioners in Library and Information Science Jour-

nals,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42 (2016), 537.22. Selenay Aytac and Bruce Slutsky, “Authorship Trends of Research Articles Published in Seven Scientific, Technical, Engineering,

and Medical (STEM) Library Journals: Analysis of STEM Library Research from 2011–2015,” Science and Technology Libraries 36, no. 2 (2017), 127.

23. Eduardo B. Araújo, Nuno A. M. Araújo, André A. Moreira, Hans J. Herrmann, and José S. Andrade Jr., “Gender Differences in Scientific Collaborations: Women are More Egalitarian Than Men,” PLoS ONE 12, no. 5 (2017): 7.

24. Eduardo B. Araújo, Nuno A. M. Araújo, André A. Moreira, Hans J. Herrmann, and José S. Andrade Jr., “Gender Differences in Scientific Collaborations: Women are More Egalitarian Than Men,” PLoS ONE 12, no. 5 (2017): 7.

25. Mathews and Andersen, 146. 26. Terry, 380-381.27. Terry, 380-381.28. Mathews and Andersen, 146.29. Rong Su, James Rounds, and Patrick Ian Armstrong, “Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in

Interests,” Psychological Bulletin, 135 no. 6 (2009): 865.30. Olaf Zawacki‐Richter and Christine Von Prümmer, “Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research,” Open

Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning 25, no. 2 (2010): 104. 31. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Carroll J. Glynn, and Michael Huge, “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment

on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest,” Communication Research 35, no 5. (2013), 608.32. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick and Carroll J. Glynn, “The Matilda Effect—Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication:

A Citation Analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication Articles,” Communication Research 40, no 1. (2013), 12-13.

33. Su et al, 865. 34. Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, and Huge, 608.35. Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn, 12-13.36. Buttlar, 48-49.37. Adamson and Zamora, 237.38. Buttlar, 50. 39. Benevento, et al., 366.40. Lubienski, Miller, and Saclarides, 80.41. Unpublished ACRL membership surveys, 2015 and 2018. 42. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook (Washington, D.C.: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017),

Table 11.43. Terry, 381.44. Luo and McKinney, 125.45. Terry, 381.46. Matthews and Andersen, 146.47. Araújo, et al, 7.

Bias in Publishing

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

527

References Adamson, Matthew and Gloria J. Zamora. “Publishing in Library Science Journals: A Test of the Olsgaard Profile.” College & Research

Libraries 42, no. 3 (1981): 235-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_42_03_235.Araújo, Eduardo B., Nuno A. M. Araújo, André A. Moreira, Hans J. Herrmann, and José S. Andrade Jr. “Gender Differences in Scien-

tific Collaborations: Women are More Egalitarian than Men.” PLoS ONE 12, no. 5 (2017): 1-10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176791.Aytac, Selenay, and Bruce Slutsky. “Authorship Trends of Research Articles Published in Seven Scientific, Technical, Engineering, and

Medical (STEM) Library Journals: Analysis of STEM Library Research from 2011–2015.” Science and Technology Libraries 36, no. 2 (2017): 114-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2017.1323070

Benevento, Nicole, Albert N. Greco, Toniann Pasqueralle, Clara Rodriguez, Francesca Russo, Alana M. Spendley, Kelly Sullivan, Yiming Sun, and Robert M. Wharton. “Who Publishes More Books in U.S. English Departments, Men or Women?” Publishing Research Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2017): 357–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9548-x.

Blecic, Deborah D., Stephen E. Wiberley Jr., Sandra L. De Groote, John Cullars, Mary Shultz, and Vivian Chan. “Publication Patterns of U.S. Academic Librarians and Libraries from 2003-2012.” College & Research Libraries 78, no. 4 (2017): 442-458.

Buttlar, Lois. “Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship.” College and Research Libraries 52, no. 1 (1991): 38-53. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_52_01_38.

Chang, Yu-Wei. “Characteristics of Articles Coauthored by Researchers and Practitioners in Library and Information Science Journals.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42 (2016): 535-41.

Cline, Gloria S. “College & Research Libraries: Its First Forty Years.” College & Research Libraries 43, no. 3 (1982): 208-32. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_43_03_208.

Cunningham, Sally Jo, and S.M. Dillon, “Authorship Patterns in Information Systems,” Scientometrics 39, no. 1 (1997), 19-27. Hakanson, Malin. “The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship,

and Library Quarterly.” College & Research Libraries 66, no. 4 (2005): 312-22. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.4.312.Henriksen, Dorte. “The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013).” Scientometrics 107 (2016), 455-76. Kaur Walia, Paramjeet, and Manpreet Kaur. “Authorship Pattern in Library and Information Science.” Journal Literature Information

Studies 18, no. 3 (2012): 163-76. Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, and Carroll J. Glynn. “The Matilda Effect—Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication: A Cita-

tion Analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication Articles.” Communication Research 40, no 1. (2013): 3-26.

Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, Carroll J. Glynn, and Michael Huge. “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest.” Communication Research 35, no 5. (2013): 603-25.

Lubienski, Sarah Theule, Emily K. Miller, and Evthokia Stephanie Saclarides. “Sex Differences in Doctoral Student Publication Rates.” Educational Researcher 47, no. 1 (2018): 76-81. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17738746.

Luo, Lili, and Margaret McKinney. “JAL in the Past Decade: A Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Library Research.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015): 123-29.

Mathews, A. Lanethea and Kristi Andersen. “A Gender Gap in Publishing? Women’s Representation in Edited Political Science Books.” PS: Political Science & Politics 34, no. 1 (2001): 143-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1350324.

Nisonger, Thomas E. “Authorship in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory.” Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 20, no. 4 (1996): 395-419.

Peñas, Celia Sánchez and Peter Willett. “Brief Communication: Gender Differences in Publication and Citation Counts in Li-brarianship and Information Science Research.” Journal of Information Science 32, no. 5 (2006): 480-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506066058.

Puuska, Hanna-Mari. “Effects of Scholar’s Gender and Professional Position on Publishing Productivity in Different Publication Types: Analysis of a Finnish University.” Scientometrics 82, no. 2 (2009): 419-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7.

Signorella, Margaret L. and Maria E. Vegega. “A Note on Gender Stereotyping of Research Topics.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10, no. 1 (1984): 107-09.

Su, Rong, James Rounds, and Patrick Ian Armstrong. “Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests.” Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 6 (2009): 859-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.

Terry, James L. “Authorship in College & Research Libraries Revisited: Gender, Institutional Affiliation, Collaboration.” College & Re-search Libraries 57, no. 4 (1996): 377-83. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_57_04_377.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Washington, D.C.: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017. Accessed from: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_aa2017.htm.

Zawacki‐Richter, Olaf and Christine Von Prümmer. “Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research.” Open Learn-ing: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 25, no. 2 (2010): 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680511003787297.

Ngoc-Yen Tran and Erin Nevius

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

528