This study is clearly modeled on the famous studies showing how differently a single CV is assessed depending on the name at the top of it. People sometimes respond to those, in my experience, by suggesting that CV review is much more problematic than assessment of actual work. This study, however, shows the same kind of result for judgments of abstracts. Really important stuff!
Young scholars rated publications supposedly written by male scientists as higher quality than identical work identified with female authors.
The research found that graduate students in communication — both men and women — showed significant bias against study abstracts they read whose authors had female names like “Brenda Collins” or “Melissa Jordan.”
These students gave higher ratings to the exact same abstracts when the authors were identified with male names like “Andrew Stone” or “Matthew Webb.”
For more, go here.