What is the gender gap in invited publications in high-impact psychology journals? To answer this critical question, Mackelprang et al. (2023) examined invited publications in five high-impact psychology journals. They first calculated the share of women among authors of the invited publications (35.6%), then compared it with a "base rate" (42.3%; the share of women among associate and full psychology professors at R1 institutions). This comparison was presented as empirical evidence of women being underrepresented in the authorship of publications in these high-impact journals. In this commentary, we show that comparing these two descriptives-either using a difference or a ratio-provides little insight into the actual gender disparity of interest. A fundamental shortcoming of such a comparison is due to outcome-dependent selection. We explain what outcome-dependent selection is and why it is inappropriate. Crucially, we explain why, following such outcome-dependent selection, comparing the share of women in the selected sample with a "base rate" rules out drawing valid inferences about the actual gender gap. We urge researchers to recognize the perils of, and thus avoid, outcome-dependent selection. Finally, we suggest an alternative approach that permits a more accurate understanding of gender disparities in academia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

由于依赖结果的选择而低估了性别差异：Mackelprang 等人的评论。（2023）。

高影响力心理学期刊的特邀出版物中的性别差距有多大？为了回答这个关键问题，Mackelprang 等人。（2023）审查了五种高影响力心理学期刊的特邀出版物。他们首先计算了受邀出版物作者中女性的比例（35.6%），然后将其与“基准率”（42.3%；R1 机构心理学副教授和正教授中女性的比例）进行比较。这一比较作为经验证据表明，在这些高影响力期刊的出版物作者中，女性的代表性不足。在这篇评论中，我们表明，比较这两种描述——无论是使用差异还是比率——并不能洞察实际的性别兴趣差异。这种比较的一个根本缺点是由于结果依赖的选择。我们解释什么是结果依赖选择以及为什么它不合适。至关重要的是，我们解释了为什么在这种依赖于结果的选择之后，将所选样本中女性的比例与“基本比率”进行比较排除了对实际性别差距得出有效推论的可能性。我们敦促研究人员认识到结果依赖型选择的危险，从而避免这种选择。最后，我们提出了一种替代方法，可以更准确地理解学术界的性别差异。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。