Visitors   Views   Downloads

Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men

View preprint
RT @amlyhamm: For those who were interested, here is the code review gender bias study I mentioned: https://t.co/1XDla4O0to A few articles…
RT @amlyhamm: For those who were interested, here is the code review gender bias study I mentioned: https://t.co/1XDla4O0to A few articles…
For those who were interested, here is the code review gender bias study I mentioned: https://t.co/1XDla4O0to A few articles discussing the study: https://t.co/AjK5wuJDSP and https://t.co/M3kbDQ3gsb #TCCC22
RT @lasdesistemas: Hay un estudio que dice exactamente lo contrario a eso que dijeron: https://t.co/WFi0PmcEzK https://t.co/A8TPUVavx2
RT @lasdesistemas: Hay un estudio que dice exactamente lo contrario a eso que dijeron: https://t.co/WFi0PmcEzK https://t.co/A8TPUVavx2
RT @lasdesistemas: Hay un estudio que dice exactamente lo contrario a eso que dijeron: https://t.co/WFi0PmcEzK https://t.co/A8TPUVavx2
RT @lasdesistemas: Hay un estudio que dice exactamente lo contrario a eso que dijeron: https://t.co/WFi0PmcEzK https://t.co/A8TPUVavx2
Hay un estudio que dice exactamente lo contrario a eso que dijeron: https://t.co/WFi0PmcEzK https://t.co/A8TPUVavx2
RT @laurasherbin: #Code written by #women is ranked higher than #men… BUT ONLY when shared anonymously. #Research exposing #genderbias in #…
#Code written by #women is ranked higher than #men… BUT ONLY when shared anonymously. #Research exposing #genderbias in #STEM: https://t.co/u8Pvt2IsQV. @TalentInnovate's upcoming research further examines the #biases and #successes #WomenInSTEM experience
Gender bias is real. For men and women. And is only one kind of bias. Learn how to combat it in #HardTalkgoo.gl/eRl5Et  https://t.co/umF5AourSJ https://t.co/9C7BNTMPmR
Gender bias is real. For men and women. And is only one kind of bias. Learn how to combat it in #HardTalkgoo.gl/eRl5Et  https://t.co/0HWElf210F https://t.co/9C7BNTMPmR
78 days ago
@OPushkina @dude59RUS Вы скорее всего имели в виду это https://t.co/tHh8xn6iZn
RT @pepemaestre: Según este estudio, hay menos probabilidad de que acepten una contribución en GitHub si viene de una mujer. No es mal día…
RT @pepemaestre: Según este estudio, hay menos probabilidad de que acepten una contribución en GitHub si viene de una mujer. No es mal día…
Según este estudio, hay menos probabilidad de que acepten una contribución en GitHub si viene de una mujer. No es mal día para recordar que fue una precisamente una mujer, Ada Lovelace, quien realizó el primer programa de la historia. https://t.co/UZOhbgERLy
86 days ago
RT @CaptainFwiffo: @Johngcole Not far-fetched. There is good evidence that women software engineers are better than men due to survivorship…
86 days ago
RT @CaptainFwiffo: @Johngcole Not far-fetched. There is good evidence that women software engineers are better than men due to survivorship…
RT @CaptainFwiffo: @Johngcole Not far-fetched. There is good evidence that women software engineers are better than men due to survivorship…
RT @CaptainFwiffo: @Johngcole Not far-fetched. There is good evidence that women software engineers are better than men due to survivorship…
@Johngcole Not far-fetched. There is good evidence that women software engineers are better than men due to survivorship bias. My anecdotal experience supports this too. https://t.co/rTGZsDOT4u
@Daneeh7 @PendorPaul @dannyhengel @triketora https://t.co/PBgv9gWSpn
181 days ago
@REDACT_PSUDONYM @mirgeee Just to get you started, this is one study specific to my field that was rather interesting, examining acceptance rates in pull-requests and code reviews. https://t.co/YQ7a7LyJrI
RT @jorgeapenas: "[W]omen's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women" https://t.co/brXricIuTs
RT @jorgeapenas: "[W]omen's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women" https://t.co/brXricIuTs
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Josh Terrell conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Andrew Kofink conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Justin Middleton conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Clarissa Rainear analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Emerson Murphy-Hill conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Chris Parnin conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Jon Stallings conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

NCSU IRB approved under #6708.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Data sets from GHTorrent and Google+ are publicly available.

Funding

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1252995. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Feedback on other revisions


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies