COOPERATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN ACADEMIC PUBLISHING A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Boontarika Paphawasit Department of Economics and Finance College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences Brunel University London, UK June 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis consists of four essays in collaboration and discrimination. The first essay examines the role of collaboration as a determinant of publication productivity in the field of economics, measured by means of citations, journal rank, and journal impact factor. The analysis employs cross-sectional data of 1,512 journal publications published in 2012 in 16 economics journals. The findings show a positive effect of team size on publication productivity, whereas research teams consisting of only one gender perform better in terms of research quality than gender-mixed teams. The analysis also indicates a negative relationship between female-dominated teams and research productivity. The second essay examines the impact of physical attractiveness on productivity. As literature found a strong impact on wages and career progression, it can be either due to discrimination in favour of good-looking people or can reflect an association between attractiveness and productivity. We utilise a context of academic publishing where there is no or limited face-to-face interaction. Using data on 2,800 authors, the results suggest that physical attractiveness has significantly important benefits. The third essay also considers the effect of physical attractiveness, as assessed based on pictures of top scientists, on their probability of winning the Nobel Prize. In contrast, the results show that attractiveness is negatively correlated with the probability of being awarded the Nobel, with the magnitude of this effect being not negligible. The fourth essay analyses the subsequent publication success (i.e., the probability to publish in top journals, the publication productivity) of the contenders in a best paper prize awarded at an academic conference to see whether the winners’ papers fare better than those that failed to get the prize, measured by rank and impact factor of the journal, and citations. We employ the data of nominees for the Distinguished CESifo Affiliate prize between 2008 and 2015. The findings indicate that winning has a positive effect on the quality of journals they published as well as the publication productivity, suggesting that scholars who succeed in their early stage of academia tend to success later compared to those who are not outstanding. ii This thesis contributes to the literature on publication productivity and discrimination in academia by extending the existing literature on these issues. In this context, we explore the determinants of research productivity in economics (e.g., gender, nationality, seniority and others) and how those characteristics impact on productivity. We also investigate the role of beauty, and the presence of appearance-based discrimination, in determining research productivity among mainstream academics. We then re-examine the role of physical attractiveness at the top of the distribution of productivity, among Nobel Prize candidates/winners. Finally, we examine inequality in scientific research outcomes and the role of the so-called Matthew Effect. The findings shed light on the issues of collaboration, discrimination and inequality in academia. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This PhD would not have been possible without my supervisor, Dr Jan Fidrmuc. I would like to express the deepest gratitude for all his great support, encouragement, and continuous guidance throughout my study. Also, he continually inspires me and demonstrates how to be a good researcher and lecturer, and I am honoured to have him as my academic advisors. Apart from the academic life, he always provides the warmest concerns to my family and me. I would like to thank the rest of my committee members, Dr Ralitza Dimova, Dr Mauro Costantini, and Dr Tomoe Moore. I greatly appreciate the time for being my examiners and examination chair, as well as their suggestions and comments. I also would like to express my gratitude to all staffs from the Department of Economics Finance for supporting all facilities, applications and paper works. Also, I would like to give profound thanks and acknowledgement to College of Arts Media, and Technology (CAMT), Chiang Mai University, for partially sponsoring my PhD programme and I would also like to thank the CAMT officers for their generous and caring support throughout my study. An endless gratitude goes to all my Thai friends for their inspiration, helping, encouragement, along with supportive conversations and laughter all the way – I am unreservedly grateful. Special thank goes to Ahmad Haboub, who is always willing to help and in constant communication. Moreover, I would like to thank all my PhD friends for their continuous support and a helping hand in all areas. Last but not least, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my beloved Papa, Mama, my older brother, and Teewara for the unconditional love, encouragement, patience, and selfless sacrifice to allow me to complete my PhD – I thank you from the bottom of my heart! Boontarika June 2017 iv DECLARATION I grant powers of discretion to the Librarian of Brunel University London to allow this thesis to be copied in whole or in part without the necessity of contacting me for permission. This permission covers only single copy made for study purposes subject to the normal conditions of acknowledgment. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. iv DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. xi 1 CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Literature review .......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Gender diversity ................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Size of author‐team .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Seniority ............................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Academic rank ...................................................................................................... 17 2.2.5 Nationality diversity ............................................................................................. 18 2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Data ...................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Variables ............................................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Model specification .............................................................................................. 32 2.4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 33 2.4.1 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................ 33 2.4.2 Findings ................................................................................................................ 36 2.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix A – 1 Summary statistics ...................................................................................... 48 Appendix A – 2 Impact of author team characteristics on average productivity according to OLS and median regression ................................................................................................. 49 Appendix A – 3 Quantile regression estimates for average productivity across quantiles . 51 vi 3 CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................... 53 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53 3.2 Literature review .........................................................................................................