Greetings from Australia, where I am on research leave. I keep meaning to write to y’all about the extensive comparative authethnography I have done by this point of dining out in tipping versus non-tipping societies. (Hint: anybody who tells you tipping doesn’t make a difference is either unobservant or an ideologue.)
Anyway, wanted to poke my head out of the socblog hidey-hole becuase of the report from Social Problems that included the observation men were more likely to appeal decisions than women. First, I cannot imagine that this is not a more correct broader generalization about sex differences in likelihood of appeal. We don’t get many appeals at TESS, but, for every example that comes to mind, it was a guy doing the appealing. More to the point, though, I want to establish a claim for two ancillary hypothesis that I think are related to the idea that men and women respond differently to disciplinary stimuli, so I can say it was my idea if anybody actually looks at this someday:
Hypothesis 1: Men are more likely than women to write the blind reviews of manuscripts that prompt authors to appeal.
Hypothesis 2: Men are more likely than women to submit comments to journals that directly attack a paper that was previously published in that journal.