Please note that the supporting documentation for this report appears in linked tables that will appear in resizable pop-up windows so that they may be consulted alongside the report; these pop-up windows should be closed as you finish consulting each table. The full report, plus Table 1 (requires landscape orientation), and all the longitudinal charts, are also available as Adobe Acrobat files that may be downloaded and printed; it is recommended that you use your printer's "Print as Image" option. All the CSWMG journal survey results since the 1970s have now been entered into an Excel spreadsheet, so we will be able to trace some trends in the field longitudinally, as demonstrated in some of the figures attached to this report.
One of the responsibilities of the Committee on the Status of Women and Minority Groups (CSWMG) is to survey journals in classical studies annually, currently 19 journals total, in order to continue encouraging the participation of women in journal publication as article contributors, journal editors, book reviewers, and referees. The statistical records of this annual Survey of Journals go back to 1977 and remain an ongoing annual effort. The longitudinal charts for 12 representative journals from 1977-2002 (available above in printable Adobe Acrobat form) indicate that women have made steady incremental progress in the above areas of Classics journal publication since 1977. As article contributors, for instance, women have proceeded from 16% of submissions and 19% of accepted articles in 1980 to 35% of submissions and 36% of accepted articles in 2002. These trends were analyzed in detail in the CSWMG Report on the 2000-2001 Journals Surveys. This year Figure 1 shows some recovery in the slight downward trends seen since 1999; note particularly the rise in the percentage of reviews by women. The other charts do not show any changes in the trends described in the previous report. CSWMG is also currently working to augment the Survey of Journals to measure and encourage the participation of minorities on the editorial boards of classical journals.
Table 1: 2002 Journals Survey contains information about 18 of the 19 journals surveyed in 2002. (One journal, Mouseion, did not return its 2002 survey, as indicated in Table 1, note 1.) Readers are welcome to consult this Table. CSWMG cautions, however, against making hasty conclusions about any individual journal from the results of a single year’s survey. Journal submissions always vary from year to year. Statistically significant patterns can be seen with precision only over time and through a careful tracking of annual increments of data.
According to the CSWMG report on the 1997-2001 departmental surveys, the mean percentage of women on Classics faculties during this five-year period was 36% (broken down into 38% in BA-granting departments, 35% in MA-granting departments, and 32% in PhD departments). The mean percentage of women in various aspects of journal publication for these two survey years is almost the same (broken down into 34% of women who are accepted for publication in 2000 and 33% in 2001; 29% of reviews by women in 2000 and 29% in 2001; 37% of referees who are women in 2000 and 39% in 2001; and 36% of editorial board members who are women in 2000 and 37% in 2001). No journal reported an editor belonging to a minority group for either the 2000 or 2001 surveys. While the percentage of editorial board members who are ethnic minorities went from 0.58% in the 2000 survey to 2.44% in the 2001 survey, it is clear that this is an area of utmost concern to all of us. 2.44% is very close to the dismally low mean percentage of minorities on Classics faculties, which was 2.5% according to the 1997-2001 department surveys.
In the 2002 survey, the total number of prospective article submissions by women was 227.83 and by men, 419.16. (These are not whole numbers due to the occurrence of a few co-authored submissions.) The corresponding percentage figures of total submissions were 35% by women, 64.5% by men (0.5% unknown); this compares with 33% ¦ 67% in both 2000 and 2001. The total number of acceptances for women was 89.83 and for men, 163.16. In percentages, the acceptance rate for women was 41% and for men, 40%, as compared with 42% women, 39% men in 2000 and 46% women, 45% men in 2001. The total number of book reviews by women was 89 and by men, 157. The corresponding percentage of total reviews by women was 36% and by men, 64%, up considerably from 29% ¦ 71% in 2000 and 2001. The total number of persons serving as journal referees was 774--309 women (40%) and 465 men (60%), representing a rise from 37% women referees in 2000 and 39% in 2001. The total number of Editorial Board members was 186--74 women, 112 men; 5 of these belonged to a minority group. Women constituted 40% of the total Editorial Board members; men, 60%; and minority groups, 3%. Women were Editors-in-Chief of six journals; men, of twelve journals. None of the five minority individuals on Editorial Boards was an Editor-in-Chief.
To situate the above data into its broader professional context, it is worth noting that women made up 36% of Classics faculties according to the 2002-03 department survey (broken down into 38% in BA-granting departments, 34% in MA-granting departments, and 34% in PhD-granting departments.) The percentage of women in the various facets of journal publication in the 2002 Survey was very close to these figures: 35% of total submissions, 40% acceptance rate, 36% of book reviews, 40% of journal referees, and 40% of Editorial Board members. The percentage of minorities on Classics faculties reported in the 2002-03 survey was 3%.
The 2002 Survey of Journals included three significant questions concerning journal policy on 1) anonymous submissions, 2) anonymous referees, and 3) number of external referees. Fourteen of the surveyed journals require anonymous submissions; one journal prefers anonymous submissions; one journal leaves anonymity to the author’s discretion; and two journals do not have a defined policy regarding anonymous submissions. Sixteen journals require anonymous refereeing, while two journals leave anonymity to the author’s discretion. In 1980, only three journals required anonymous submission and refereeing. The number of external referees ranged from one to three across the eighteen journals. Eleven journals require at least two external referees. The average number of external referees was 1.85.
The CSWMG hopes that the findings of the 2002 Survey of Journals will further enhance the collective will of the Classics profession to ameliorate situations of inequality in the profession, especially regarding the rarity of persons of color among our colleagues. The participation of minorities on the editorial board of Classics journals is very low, but for this to increase, we need and must further promote a greater presence of minorities in the Classics profession. Women have made substantive progress in all facets of journal publications since 1980 But the CSWMG likewise notes that for there to be gender parity in Classics journal publications, we must continue striving for the same in the profession.
The CSWMG would like to thank the eighteen journal editors and support staff members in the United States and Canada who made the 2002 Survey of Journals possible. Their cooperation and input have been crucial. The CSWMG especially appreciates the model leadership of Barbara McManus, who conducted the 2002 Survey and has compiled and saved the Survey of Journals data for 2002 and previous years.