by Robert Reed
However, the fact that there is not an exact correspondence does not mean there is no relationship at all. Among these markets, the gender breakdown of total published stories is correlated with the gender breakdown of published science fiction stories. So, while individual markets may not display the exact same gender ratio for science fiction stories as for their overall stories, markets in general that tend to publish more men than women overall, also tend to publish more science fiction stories by men and vice-versa.
What About Editors?
During my research, two theories regarding gender representation of authors were brought to my attention.
The first theory: editors who are men might be more likely to select stories by men for publication, and editors who are women might be more likely to select stories by women for publication.
The second theory: older editors might be more likely to select stories by men for publication. (The reasoning behind this theory is that our tastes are shaped by our reading in early life, and that older editors are more likely to have grown up reading predominantly stories by men.)
I was unable to gather this data for all the editors and editorial teams, but with the data I did have, I tested those theories, with some interesting results.
As far as science fiction stories go, gender of senior editorial teams had no relationship with gender breakdown of published stories. (Here, “relationship” is another statistical term that means one thing depends on the other, or, affects or is affected by the other). However, when looking at total published stories in the markets, there was a relationship, with all-men senior editorial teams more likely to publish stories by men, when compared to all-woman senior editorial teams and mixed-gender senior editorial teams.
I also tested for relationships with the age of the senior editorial team. A very weak relationship was found, and only bears mentioning to maintain completeness in presentation.
What Does This All Mean?
There are a couple of takeaway points from the analysis so far.
If we believe that science fiction story authorship should reflect the gender breakdown of the world population, the analysis shows that currently, published science fiction short stories in SFWA qualifying markets are skewed towards authors who are men. However, this is not something that all markets contribute to equally. Multiple markets are close to parity, or even skew towards stories by women.
However, there’s no one single factor that explains why some markets skew towards authors who are men and others skew towards authors who are women. While the science fiction-only markets all skew towards authors who are men, this characteristic can also be found in mixed-genre markets, especially when we look at science fiction stories separately.
Seven of the twelve mixed-genre markets have a greater representation of authors who are men in their science fiction section than in their overall catalogue. However, in general, mixed-genre markets that publish a high proportion of stories by women overall will also publish a high proportion of science fiction stories by women, and vice-versa.
This next bit is kind of fuzzy. Age of senior editorial team, while technically showing a relationship with a high representation of authors who are men, is not at a reliable result. Yes, there’s a correlation, but it’s very weak, such that we really can’t draw any conclusions from it. Gender of senior editorial team does show a relationship with the gender breakdown of total published stories, but has no relationships with science fiction stories. This relationship with total stories, by the way, is a classic example of correlation vs. causation. We can’t say that gender of senior editor causes the difference in gender representation in stories. It could be the other way around, or it could be due to a separate factor that affects both.
I mentioned at the beginning of this piece that publications are the end result of a process, and this analysis is a process as well. Looking at publications alone is insufficient. However, it does give us some important information—it shows us the situation as it is, and that’s our first step in figuring out how it came to be.
Next time on Adventures in Statistics: Do Acceptances show the same patterns? Are editors displaying preferences in the stories they solicit and the reprints they choose to publish? Do different markets show significant differences in the gender ratios of submitted stories? Will our heroine have an Excel-induced meltdown? Stay tuned . . .
About the Author
Susan E. Connolly’s short fiction and non-fiction have appeared in Strange Horizons, Daily Science Fiction, The Center For Digital Ethics and the fanzine Journey Planet. She is the author of Damsel, a middle-grade fantasy from Mercier Press and Granuaile, an upcoming historical comic book from Atomic Diner. Her degree in Veterinary Medicine given her strong opinions about the accurate portrayal of animal sidekicks in fiction. Susan lives in Ireland, near the mountains. Also near the sea. Also near the forest (Ireland is a small country).
The Issue of Gender in Genre Fiction:
The Math Behind it All
Susan E. Connolly
Editor’s Note: Knowing that some people will be curious about the math behind Susan’s piece, we asked her to provide something a bit more technical for those more mathematically inclined among us.
Key Points for Understanding
Publications refers to prose fiction published by a market, including reprints and solicited stories.
Each publication is treated separately. Three publications by one market of stories by one author count as three separate data points for that category.
Dual-authored stories by a man-woman team are considered as half a data point for each category.
Serials are treated as follows:
Each installment is a separate data point for publications.
The series as a whole is one data point for acceptances.
Not all markets provided full data in all categories, which meant they had to be excluded from some analyses, or have their data transformed. This is not ideal, but such cases are marked.
No market in this study asks for authors to identify their gender when submitting. As such, this is not actually a study of science fiction publication and submission gender. Rather, it is a study of the apparent gender of submission authors based on:
Use of gender-associated first names
Use of gendered pronouns in public biographies
Public information about gender identity
The definition of “science fiction” is not easy. While some markets kept detailed data on science fiction vs. science fiction/fantasy vs. slipstream, most did not. As such, all such categories were considered as “science fiction.”
Specific notes on individual markets regarding publications:
Lightspeed operates a policy of gender parity in publications.
Buzzy Mag operates as a continuous publication, with publications here those with a published date of 2013.
The F&SF Special Issue has not yet been published.
Market Time Period Data Verified by Editor Genre
AE Year 2013 Yes Science fiction only
Analog June 2013—May 2014 Yes Science fiction only
Asimov’s Year 2013 Yes Science fiction only
Bull Spec Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Buzzy Mag Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Clarkesworld Year 7 (October 2012-September 2013) Yes Mixed genre
Daily Science Fiction Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Escape Pod Year 2013 Yes Science fiction-only
F&SF Year 2013 No Mixed genre
F&SF Special Issue July/August Special Issue Yes Mixed genre
Flash Fiction Online Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
IGMS Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Lightspeed Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Nature Year 2013 Yes Science fiction only
Strange Horizons Year 2013 Yes Mixed genre
Tor.com Year 2013 No Mixed genre
A1: Publications by Genderl
Across seventeen markets, the total number
of published stories was 996: 559.5 by men, 422.5 by women, 1 non-binary and 13 unknown.
The gender ratio was therefore 56.2% men, 42.4% women, 0.1% non-binary and 1.3% unknown.
Hypothesis: publications by men are equally likely as those by women to be above the median or not above the median.
Given a median of 50%, each market was assessed for whether its publications by men and publications by women were above or not above that median.
Median chi-square total publications
Category Authors who are men Authors who are women Total
Above median 9 7 16
not above median 8 10 18
Total 17 17 34
Results:
chi square value: 0.472
With a probability of 0.05 (or 95%) I have a critical value of 3.84.
Therefore I cannot reject our initial hypothesis.
Hypothesis: There are no significant differences in gender ratios relationship between markets.
To test this hypothesis, I performed a chi-square test between the variables of “market” and “gender ratio.”
Results:
chi sq: 92.65
With a probability level of .001 (or 99.9%) our critical value is 39.25.
Therefore I can with confidence reject the hypothesis.
A2: Science Fiction Publications by Genderl
I performed the same tests for published science fiction stories.
Across seventeen markets, the total number of published science fiction stories was 649: 403 by men, 237 by women, 0 non-binary and 9 unknown.
The gender ratio was therefore 62.1% men, 36.5% women, 0% non-binary and 1.4% unknown.
Median chi-square science fiction publications
Category Authors who are men Authors who are women total
Above median 9 6 15
Not above median 8 11 15
Total 15 15 30
Results:
Our median chi square result was 1.07.
Therefore I cannot reject the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis: There are no significant differences in gender ratios relationship between markets for science fiction stories.
Our chi-square result was 47.75.
With a probability level of .001 (or 99.9%) our critical value is 39.25.
Therefore I can with confidence reject the null hypothesis.
A3: Science Fiction Story Publication Split by Genre of Market:l
Across five markets that published only science fiction, the total number of published science fiction stories was 285: 205 by men and 80 by women. This gives a gender ratio of 71.9% men, 28.1% women, 0% unknown.
Across twelve markets that published other genres in addition to science fiction, the total number of published science fiction stories was 364: 198 by men, 157 by women and 9 unknown. This gives a gender ratio of 54.4% men, 43.1% women and 2.5% unknown.
Hypothesis: there is no correlation between a market publishing only science fiction, and a greater proportion of science fiction stories by men.
To assess this hypothesis, I used a point-biserial correlation. Our result was 0.62 (considered strong).
Is this significant? I performed a T test for independent means to get a T-value of 3.05, with a P-value of 0.004. At the 99.5% probability for a one tailed t test the critical value is 2.95.
Therefore I can reject the null hypothesis.
A4: Non-Science_Fiction-Only Publications—Gender Split of Total Pubs vs. Gender Split of Science Fiction Pubsl
Using a Pearson’s Correlation analysis I found an R value of 0.6158 (considered a moderate positive correlation.)
So there is a tendency for markets which publish a high proportion of overall stories by men to publish a high proportion of science fiction stories by men (and vice-versa).
A5: Story Publication Split by Gender of Senior Editor
Note: One senior editor identifies as a genderqueer woman for political purposes and was included in the “woman” category for these assessments.
Across eight publications with men only as senior editor total stories published was 434, with 280 by men and 154 by women.
The gender ratio was therefore 64.52% men, 35.48% women.
Across five publications with women only as senior editor total stories published was 210, with 108.5 by men, 99.5 by women, 1 non-binary and 1 unknown.
The gender ratio was therefore 51.67% men, 47.38% women
Across four publications with mixed-gender editorial total stories published was 352 stories, with 171 by men, 169 by women, and 12 by unknown.
The gender ratio was therefore 48.58% men, 48.01% women and 3.41% unknown.
Hypothesis: Men-only senior editorial teams are not more likely to publish authors who are men.
I got a point-biserial correlation coefficient of 0.42, (considered moderate.)
I ran a T test for independent means to get a value of 1.80.
At the 95% probability for a one tailed t test the critical value is 1.75.
Therefore I can reject the null hypothesis.
A6: Science Fiction Story Publication Split by Gender of Senior Editorl
I performed the same tests for science fiction stories.
Across eight publications with men only as senior editors, total science fiction stories published was 320, with 210.5 by men and 109.5 by women.
The gender ratio was therefore 65.78% men, 34.22% women.
Across five publications with women only as senior editors, total science fiction stories published was 120, with 78.5 by men, 41.5 by women.
The gender ratio was therefore 65.42% men, 34.58% women.
Across four publications with mixed-gender editorial teams, total science fiction stories published was 205, with 117 by men, 79 by women, and 9 by unknown.
The gender ratio was therefore 57.07% men, 38.54% women and 4.39% unknown.
Hypothesis: Men-only senior editorial teams are not more likely to publish science fiction stories by men.
Point biserial correlation coefficient—0.30 (moderate).
Student t-test—1.21.
At the 95% probability for a one tailed t test the critical value is 1.75.
Therefore, I cannot reject the null hypothesis.
Given the percentage difference, there may be a correlation between mixed-gender editorial teams and a smaller proportion of authors who are men.
Hypothesis: Single-gender senior editorial teams are not more likely to publish science fiction stories by men.
Point biserial correlation coefficient—0.34 (moderate).
Student t-test—1.42.
At the 95% probability for a one tailed t test the critical value is 1.75.
Therefore, I cannot reject the null hypothesis.
A7: Story Publication Split by Average Age of Senior Editorial Teaml
Four publications declined to provide age data: Apex, Nature, Buzzy Mag, Tor.com. This analysis used a Pearson’s correlation.
Mean Age vs. Total Publications by Men %
The value of R is 0.3198. This is technically a positive correlation, but the relationship is weak.
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.1023.
Mean Age vs. Science Fiction Publications by Men %
The value of R is 0.0064. This is technically a positive correlation, but the relationship is weak.
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.
Median Age vs. Total Publications by Men %
The value of R is 0.3281. This is technically a positive correlation, but the relationship is weak.
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.1076.
Median Age vs. Science Fiction Publications by Men %
The value of R is 0.0109. This is technically a positive correlation, but the relationship is weak.
The value of R2, the coefficient of determination, is 0.0001.
About the Author
Susan E. Connolly’s short fiction and non-fiction have appeared in Strange Hor
izons, Daily Science Fiction, The Center For Digital Ethics and the fanzine Journey Planet. She is the author of Damsel, a middle-grade fantasy from Mercier Press and Granuaile, an upcoming historical comic book from Atomic Diner. Her degree in Veterinary Medicine given her strong opinions about the accurate portrayal of animal sidekicks in fiction. Susan lives in Ireland, near the mountains. Also near the sea. Also near the forest (Ireland is a small country).
Wendig’s Golden Prolific: A Conversation with Chuck Wendig
Alvaro Zinos-Amaro
Chuck Wendig is the author of the published novels Blackbirds, Mockingbird, The Cormorant, Under the Empyrean Sky, Blue Blazes, Double Dead, Bait Dog, Dinocalypse Now, Beyond Dinocalypse and Gods & Monsters: Unclean Spirits.
He is co-writer of the short film Pandemic, the feature film HiM, and the Emmy-nominated digital narrative Collapsus. Wendig has contributed over two million words to the game industry. He is also well known for his profane-yet-practical advice to writers, which he dispenses at his blog, terribleminds.com, and through several popular e-books, including The Kick-Ass Writer, published by Writers Digest.
I had the pleasure of chatting with him about corn-punk, Pac-Man, muse elves, and the shedding of literary illusions regarding the novel.
