11 Citations   Views   Downloads

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

View preprint
6 days ago
RT @ApuntesCiencia: @ClaraGrima https://t.co/dsg84kYz4e
@ClaraGrima https://t.co/dsg84kYz4e
@sacquin_mo Quelques études : https://t.co/KGVZxPXlE1 https://t.co/jrGfFX6xvn https://t.co/9f2tUVaaLq https://t.co/UUrPsV4kYR https://t.co/QdIomJw3Yh https://t.co/EX9IzW0G4Q https://t.co/ZUANWsY0Dq https://t.co/tMp2Hb6LaM Et ce grand thread avec plein de liens : https://t.co/yTdC2KPoYi
@ondrakucera @vit_tucek @Dirt_Poor_Ugly Ale úplně největší problém vidím v “unconcious bias”: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@JiriHolub2 Další: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@PetrKovarik1 @smrkovyles @ankahajkova @Tomas_Tozicka @InclusiveLucie @EvLacinov @MarcikFrantisek @trnk_c @jakub_ort A zde poradna studie: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@__jedem__ @javakdg Ik denk dat je het dan niet goed leest, hier het hele onderzoek https://t.co/JZbp4YbSPo over de significantie staat er: "for bigdata studies such as this one, even small differences can be statistically significant. "
@DanielPolach @pavelhoudek @kedrix79 Je to ve všech oborech. Práva patří prave mezi ty nejhorší, možná horsi než technické obory, když přijde na predsudky vůči ženám. Pokud se vám nelibi lehký článek pro ilustraci, tak tu mate tvrde vedecke studie. https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@EmmigrantPanama @lokutus @Vysmek @hansvavra @IcepointMilik @manicsis @martiiiiiiik @haramkaza @9sirtom5 Nebo hodnoceni programátorů a programatorek: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@Vysmek @lokutus @hansvavra @IcepointMilik @manicsis @martiiiiiiik @haramkaza @9sirtom5 Žádný kapitalista nebude zaměstnávat někoho, koho pokládá za horšího pracovníka a určitě mu nebude platit stejne dobre peníze. Bias je samozřejmě davno vedecky prokázán, existuje. https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@sopptik @RovnaO @statistickyurad @EU_Eurostat @eurogender @NKC_CZ @Sociologicky Je to velmi donee zmereny fakt: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@Vory18 @BobCZap Vědecká data: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
RT @petermbenjamin: When you read code, the race, religion, politics, gender, and orientation of the author are most certainly factors in t…
89 days ago
RT @petermbenjamin: When you read code, the race, religion, politics, gender, and orientation of the author are most certainly factors in t…
When you read code, the race, religion, politics, gender, and orientation of the author are most certainly factors in the readers' perspectives. Don't be lazy like your racist uncle on Thanksgiving and read up on the topic: https://t.co/cCFP3AgX22 and https://t.co/SsfXSRfJsF
@girlwriteswhat @MrGaribaldi1960 @PatriotMacK @deeyablo @Daphne_488 @HappiJason @HoneyBadgerBite @daralynn13 @TheFeministBat @MickKime A research article showing clear bias against women in tech: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@_LauraLulu @ProfaneFeminist https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
@majkimark @NedyNadija @oldafojtik K tomu jaký bordel mate v IT: https://t.co/NWQsgeUpja
RT @VladimirSedmik: @FalkKaterina @AdrianaCerna Zajímavá studie na téma z mého oboru: https://t.co/BoU5k3zt2w tldr: ženy programátorky mají…
@BetterAcademia @merschrod @jenheemstra https://t.co/JFV7ORoNBO
RT @ErikaVaris: Women PR’s accepted more often than men...but only if they’re not readily identifiable as women. https://t.co/7APpNue8MC
Women PR’s accepted more often than men...but only if they’re not readily identifiable as women. https://t.co/7APpNue8MC
@gregory_palermo @ubiquity75 Gender Differences and Bias in Open Source: Pull Request Acceptance of Women Versus Men https://t.co/Vi9oEMOrXB
267 days ago
@FranoisTheveno1 @LaurentSciorti1 @Malbrunot Oui enfin en prog le problème c'est surtout les types comme vous. "our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, women's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women." https://t.co/86sFP8hJBo
@PouriaNorouzi اینم لینک یه تحقیق علمی که نشون میده خانمها برنامه نویسهای بهتری هستند: https://t.co/jUGZRGuvzh https://t.co/QPv82JKs7I
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