ASEAS 15(1) | 43 Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia Ella Prihatinia, b & Wendy Prajulia a Bina Nusantara University, Indonesia; b University of Western Australia, Australia Received: 27 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 May 2022 / Published: 30 June 2022 ► Prihatini, E., & Prajuli, W. (2022). Gender in academic journals: Experience from Indonesia. Advances in Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 43-59. The literature on the gender gap in political science and international relations (IR) has increased significantly in the last couple of decades. However, little is known about how male and female scholars are publishing their works in non-Western-based IR journals. Our study aims to unpack this by examining publications and authorship patterns in IR journals published in Indonesia. The case study represents a non-English speaking country with pivotal roles in international politics and geopolitical aspects, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous nation and the third largest democracy, located between the Indian Ocean and the China Sea. The country is critical to regional stability and progress in Southeast Asia. Indonesia also has over seventy IR departments in various universities nationwide, and one professional associ- ation that aims to support teaching and research on IR. We asked whether men always outnumber women in terms of publishing academic papers. What is the pattern of topics published? And are there any shared interests between the two sexes? Using bibliographic data from seven IR journals published in Indonesia between 2000 and 2019 (N = 783), this paper highlights some key similarities with previous studies in Western societies. The findings suggest women produce fewer articles than men, and ‘gender homophily’ among men limits women’s leadership in scholarly publication. Yet, men and women shared equal interest in topics such as ‘security’, ‘military’, and ‘governance’, indicating that gendered preferences may not always be the best evidence to suggest that IR is a masculine discipline. Keywords: Gender; Bibliometric Analysis; Indonesia; International Relations; Publication; Global South  INTRODUCTION The gender gap in academia is a persistent global phenomenon, as fewer women work as lecturers and professors than would be expected given the relatively equal numbers of men and women as graduate students (Aiston & Fo, 2020; Aiston & Yang, 2017; Breuning et al., 2018; Knights & Richards, 2003; Monroe & Chiu, 2010). This is, in particular, a continuing challenge for international relations (IR), a subfield of political science, where male academics dominate the professional ladder and academic publications (Atchison, 2018; Breuning, Current Research on Southeast Asia w w w .s ea s. at 10 .1 47 64 /1 0. A SE A S- 00 68 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5518-2233 44 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia 2010; Hancock et al., 2013; Maliniak et al., 2008; Østby et al., 2013; Phull et al., 2019; Timperley, 2013; Williams et al., 2015). The literature on gender disparities in IR has increased significantly in the last couple of decades, especially the literature based on Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys of scholars in the United States (Maliniak et al., 2008; Maliniak & Tierney, 2009), Australia, New Zealand (Sharman & True, 2011; Westendorf & Strating, 2020) and 20 other countries, including some from Asia (Maliniak et al., 2012). Moreover, prior studies available on gender, journal author- ship, and citation suggest that discussions were dominated by the Global North setting (Breuning, 2010; Breuning & Sanders, 2007; Evans & Moulder, 2011; Hancock et al., 2013; Key & Sumner, 2019; Williams et al., 2015), leaving a vacuum of research about how women fare in IR in non-Western countries. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation of how male and female scholars are publishing their works in non-Western-based IR journals. Incorporating the insights from quantitative and qualitative analyses, and using Indonesia as a case study, we empirically investigated gender disparity in IR publications. This paper rep- resents a non-English speaking country with pivotal roles in international politics and geopolitical aspects, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous nation and the third largest democracy, located between the Indian Ocean and the China Sea. The country is critical to regional stability and progress in Southeast Asia. It also has over seventy IR departments in various universities nation- wide and one professional association that aims to support teaching and research. Publishing often determines career advancement in academia. This measure- ment of achievement continues to play a central role in requirements for tenure and promotion (Breuning, 2010) in almost all sorts of higher educational institutions. In particular, “peer-reviewed journal articles [. . .] are the coin of the realm when it comes to tenure and promotion” (Maliniak et al., 2008, p. 131). The significance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals makes it important to understand the patterns of authorship and research themes, which will further explain the careers of women academics in countries including Indonesia. By the time of this writing, the country has only ten professors in IR and one of them is female1. Why are so few IR scholars obtaining full professorships in Indonesia? One possible explanation for this lies in the publication aspect, which plays an impor- tant role in Indonesia's higher education sector. Hence, the current paper aims to examine how men and women fare in publishing IR scholarly works in Indonesian journals. Drawing on a bibliographic dataset, which consists of 783 published arti- cles in seven Indonesian IR journals accredited and listed highest in Indonesia’s academic journal index, Sinta (Science and Technology Index), our study suggests that the number of publications by solo women is significantly lower (31.4%) than those by solo men (48.4%). This result is predictable as almost 60% of IR lecturers in Indonesia are male (RISTEK DIKTI, 2020a). However, it is worth noting that the productivity gap is not as severe as in the US, where female authors comprise only 14% (1980–2007) and 19% of all published articles in the top 12 IR journals between 1 Another female IR professor was inaugurated in November 2021 and she had been working as a lecturer for over 25 years (https://scholar.ui.ac.id/en/persons/evi-fitriani). https://scholar.ui.ac.id/en/persons/evi-fitriani ASEAS 15(1) | 45 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli 2004 and 2007 (Maliniak et al., 2008). The data also indicates gender homophily in co-authored articles (men co-publishing with men, and women co-publishing with women), which is significantly high among men, limiting women’s leadership in scholarly publications. Expanding from the literature on gender and keyword choices, our study con- tends that, compared to male scholars, female scholars are more likely to publish research with keywords such as ‘workers’, ‘migrant’, ‘gender’, and ‘environment’. On the other hand, male scholars tend to explore topics with keywords that include ‘defense’, ‘theory’, ‘crisis’, and ‘trade’. Nevertheless, as both sexes are equally interested in examining ‘security’, ‘Asia’, ‘military’, and ‘cooperation’, we argue that gendered preferences may not always be the best indicator to strengthen perceptions that sug- gest IR is a masculine discipline (Kadera, 2013; Tickner & Sjoberg, 2011). Following this introductory section, the rest of the article proceeds in five subsequent sections. The second section introduces the literature on gender and authorship in IR journals. The third section presents a case study of Indonesia as the representation of the Global South. In the fourth section, we discuss the data and methods used, while in the fifth section, we elaborate on the findings from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses. Finally, we discuss key conclusions and directions for future research in understanding gendered publication in the IR field. LITERATURE REVIEW: GENDER AND AUTHORSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS JOURNALS Political science is still very much a gendered institution (Acker, 1992), and “far from ideal” as the experiences of women in the discipline differ significantly from those of men (Tolleson-Rinehart & Carroll, 2006, p. 511), and cultural sexism has become an ordinary feature of women’s academic lives (Savigny, 2017). Prior studies have demon- strated women are underrepresented in this discipline in the US (Maliniak et al., 2008; Mitchell & Hesli, 2013), Europe (Akhtar et al., 2005; Bates & Savigny, 2015; Bonjour et al., 2016), the UK (Bates et al., 2012; Bennie & Topf, 2003; Knights & Richards, 2003), New Zealand (Curtin, 2013; Timperley, 2013), and Japan (Steele, 2016). Globally, women comprise less than a third of political scientists (Livingstone- Peters, 2020), as reflected in almost all national political science associations’ (PSA) memberships, except in Tunisian and Turkish PSAs, where women made up 57.5% and 53.6% of members, respectively (Abu-Laban et al., 2018). Women are, therefore, working disproportionately in lower levels of the profession; for example, in the US, they made up 67% of non-tenure track positions and merely 18% of full professors (American Political Science Association [APSA], 2005). Furthermore, women are scarcer in IR departments than they are in other fields of political science; one pos- sible explanation for this relates to the masculinism embedded in IR and security professions (Fotaki, 2013; Sjoberg, 2008; Tétreault, 2008). Based on the TRIP survey of IR scholars in the United States in 2007, women comprise merely 14% of all full professors, and they “are still second-class citizens” within the profession with research differing from that of male scholars (Maliniak et al., 2008, p. 123). A larger TRIP project, which involved 20 countries, five languages, 46 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia and nearly 3,500 respondents, corroborates this assertion, highlighting that women’s underrepresentation in teaching and research areas of IR is, in fact, a global phe- nomenon. Similarly, Indonesia experiences the underrepresentation of women at the senior level; this raises the question of what factors contribute to this disparity. A study by APSA (2005) suggested that women’s lack of representation in political science is explained by four obstacles: • the ‘leaking pipeline’ of women exiting the profession after undergraduate and graduate programs, dropping out from doctoral programs or pursuing an alternative career outside academia; • the ‘dual burden’ of family and tenure track responsibilities; • the ‘institutional climate’ that all too frequently remains inhospitable to women; and • the ‘culture of research’ in the discipline that often undermines topics related to women’s issues. The final factor significantly hinders the ability of women to advance their careers, since publishing is often the key to career advancement in academia (Weisshaar, 2017). An observation of 2,055 dissertations in political science published between 2000 and 2013 found that topics disproportionately written by women include race, health- care, narrative and discourse, and branches of government (Key & Sumner, 2019). On the other hand, men dominated the ‘big’ topics in political science: voting, cam- paigns, and interstate war. The trend continues to shape the gendered publication as topics favored by women tend to appear at low rates in three top political science journals: American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. Breuning’s (2010) study on the literature of international studies highlights that women’s presence in prestigious IR journals lags substantially behind their presence in the discipline. She measures gender parity in publishing as women publishing in proportion to their membership in the discipline. For example, out of the eight IR prominent journals observed, International Studies Review between 2004 and 2008 performed the best with 85% of parity, while International Studies Quarterly between 1999 and 2003 only showed a parity of 53%. The productivity gap further reflects how women are systematically less cited than men even after controlling numerous varia- bles, including the year of publication, methodology, tenure status, and institutional affiliation (Maliniak et al., 2013). By looking at more than 3,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in 12 influential peer-reviewed IR journals, Maliniak et al. (2013) found that articles authored by men garnered an average of 4.8 more citations than those authored by women. A couple of factors help in explaining this gender citation gap. Firstly, women cite themselves less than men. Male-authored articles have 0.4 self-cites on average, while articles authored by one woman self-cite 0.25 articles (Maliniak et al., 2013). The second explanation suggests IR scholars tend to cite along gender lines, as men cite male-authored articles more than female-authored articles, and vice versa (Dion & Mitchell, 2020). This ‘homophily effect’, therefore, could account for the gender ASEAS 15(1) | 47 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli gap in citations since the number of men in the field is significantly higher than that of women. The disparity in publication productivity and the citation gap combined are two pivotal aspects that make women less successful in climbing the academic ladder (Sjoberg, 2008; Teele & Thelen, 2017). WOMEN AND IR IN INDONESIA Like in many countries, IR in Indonesia is a subfield of political science and is often a department in faculties of social sciences or humanities. We sought to identify universities that offer IR courses from the Indonesian Association for International Relations (Asosiasi Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Indonesia) and the Directorate General of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia (DITJEN DIKTI). These two sources provided a list of universities and the details on the establishment, faculty members, and lecturer-student ratio. An IR program was first offered by the National University (Universitas Nasional) in 1949. The field has then expanded, with a total of 73 universities across the country offering IR programs to date (AIHII, 2022a). In line with this growth is the effort both by academics and universities to publish scientific research in scholarly journals. As of the time of writing, there are 27 academic journals run by IR departments in vari- ous Indonesian universities. In terms of the composition of the lecturers, a smaller gender gap exists in the Indonesian context compared to other countries, with women comprising nearly 41% of all registered lecturers (see Table 1). Regarding educational attainment, however, more men than women have doctoral degrees. This could have serious implications because the professional ladder in Indonesian universities is strongly influenced by educational level. This gap partly serves as an explanation as to why Indonesia has only a few IR professors. The requireements to become a full professor in Indonesia consist of a doctoral degree, reputable international publications, and at least 10 years of teaching expe- rience. However, the last condition can be waived if the person has an outstanding performance in publishing scholarly articles in top journals indexed in Scopus. The publication requirement often becomes the biggest hurdle for academics to get a full professorship. Some academics blame the workloads that heavily focus on teaching rather than research. As a result, in 2009, Indonesian IR scholars launched AIHII to provide support systems for themselves. From the AIHII website (www.aihii.or.id), the organization claims it has 80 registered members (72% male and 28% female). The Gender Number of Lecturers (%) Educational attainment (in %) PhD Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Male 496 (59.05) 11.17 82.46 3.33 Female 344 (40.94) 7.98 85.80 3.52 Table 1. Registered IR lecturers: Gender and level of education of the lecturers. (RISTEK DIKTI, 2020a) http://www.aihii.or.id 48 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia domination of men in this organization can also be seen in the current committee (2020–2023) members of whom only 36% are female. DATA AND METHODS This study aims to examine the patterns of gendered authorship within peer-re- viewed IR journal articles in Indonesia in the last two decades by analyzing seven journals. These journals were purposefully selected from 27 journals registered on AIHII’s website (2022b). The selected articles are written in either Indonesian or English. The authors are not limited to Indonesian citizens, as some journals actively invite works by people affiliated with overseas institutions and universities. We limit our observation by only including journals that have been accredited and listed in Sinta. The Director-General of Strengthening Research and Development, Ministry of Research Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, initiated Sinta in 2016 in an effort to measure the performance of researchers, institutions, and journals in Indonesia (RISTEK DIKTI, 2020b). As a web-based research informa- tion system, Sinta provides benchmarks and analysis, and identification of research strengths of each institution to develop collaborative partnerships. Sinta has six tiers, which indicate the impact of the journal, with those coded as S1 referring to journals that are also indexed in Scopus. As of April 2021, the Journal of ASEAN Studies has been included in Scopus, making it the first Indonesian-based journal focusing on IR indexed in the database. This study also incorporated journals in the next tier, S2 (see Table 2). All the journals selected in this study are published by universities. We accessed articles that are available online from the journals’ websites. This selection has some limitations, such as the exclusion of articles written in journals ranked lower in Sinta. It also excludes works by Indonesian authors pub- lished in international journals. However, this inclusion and exclusion strategy is in line with the aim of the study, which is to examine the gendered patterns in Indonesian IR journals, representing a Global South setting and the dissemination of knowledge in a non-Western country. Yet, it does not give a general picture of the Journal Title Publisher Editor’s Gender Year Estab- lished 5-year citations Number of Articles Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional Universitas Indonesia Male 1990 101 164 Jurnal Ilmiah Hubungan Internasional Universitas Katolik Parahyangan Female 1997 70 87 Jurnal Hubungan Internasional Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta Male 2004 124 149 Global Strategis Universitas Airlangga Female 2007 68 200 Andalas Journal of International Studies Universitas Andalas Female 2012 43 79 Journal of ASEAN Studies Universitas Bina Nusantara Male 2013 62 71 Intermestic: Journal of International Studies Universitas Padjadjaran Male 2016 39 33 Table 2. List of Indonesian IR journals observed. (authors’ compilation) ASEAS 15(1) | 49 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli publication situation in the Global South. It acknowledges that other regions, such as Latin America, Africa, and other parts of Asia, have different dynamics and contexts. In the next stage, we manually collected all the bibliographic information of the 783 articles published in seven journals from each journal’s year of establishment up to the end of 2019. We collected all articles from each journal’s website by searching all volumes available. The collected information includes the gender of the author(s), language used, title, abstract, and keywords. In cases where the articles were written in Indonesian, we provide the English translation for the title, abstract, and keywords in order to make the analysis consistent. We used the online text-analysis tools Textalyser and Datawrapper to depict the detailed statistics of the bibliographic text and run visualizations. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Most findings presented in this section are descriptive, as the paper examines the patterns of how men and women are published in IR journals in Indonesia. Nevertheless, we intend to incorporate with these findings a discussion to explore the reasons behind the differences, and to compare the Indonesian case with other countries in the world. The first pattern is productivity. Did men always outnumber women in terms of publishing academic papers? If so, what is the trend in the years we observed? Following that is collaboration, which we are interested in examining to determine whether men and women show significant differences in working as a team. Did men tend to publish more collaborative papers than women? And what is the pattern of female authors working as a group? The next section deals with the use of English and Indonesian in the published articles. We examine if men and women have different levels of preference in pub- lishing in a foreign language and what is the trend in using English for both men and women. Finally, and more importantly, we analyze what topics are discussed by male and female authors. Here, we break down the preferences by observing the title and keywords used in each paper and ask: What topics do women mostly engage in? And are there any shared interests between the two sexes? Productivity As previously discussed in the literature review, men and women published in IR journals with notable gaps in productivity (Maliniak et al., 2008; Østby et al., 2013; Teele & Thelen, 2017). The Indonesian experience aligns with the global trend as solo male authorship has been the most common pattern (Teele & Thelen, 2017); the only exception was between 2009 and 2011 (see Figure 1). Interestingly, in 2002 the percentage of men and women as single authors was equally distributed, while collaborative papers were simply nonexistent. Although IR departments have been established in 73 universities around the country, delivering study programs for more than 20 years, academic publication only started to flourish in 2012. The clearest indication of this development is the emergence of new journals. This development is due to the Central Government’s encouragement policy. Since the mid-2000s, the Indonesian Government, especially 50 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia the Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI), has encouraged Indonesian academics to establish national academic journals, as well as to publish academic works in national and international journals (see Law No. 14/2005 on Teachers and Lecturers and Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education). In 2012, to improve the publication of national journals, the DIKTI released a controversial circular letter that obliged undergraduates to publish their theses in national journals (DIKTI Circular Letter No. 152/E/T/2012). The reason behind the policy was to increase the number of publications by Indonesian academics, which is lower compared to other Southeast Asian countries. The policy of encouragement, therefore, inspired various departments, including IR, to establish their own journals. In return, DIKTI generates national accreditation and ranking systems to improve the quality of the journals. Collaboration Scholarly publications in Indonesia, particularly in the field of IR, are currently in the infancy stage. Therefore, the enthusiasm to conduct research and publish research findings is fresh hope for the advancement of this field of social science in the future. Nevertheless, the following graph suggests that the number of collaborative works remains relatively low. Only one out of seven journals observed has the composition of collaborative articles exceeding 30%, while the overall average sits at 23%. The low number of collaborative works was caused by a couple of factors. Firstly, interaction among IR scholars is still low. There are no programs or regulations, either from the government or universities, that support academic interactions and communications among scholars, such as fellowship programs. The lack of such sup- port has created limited mobility for interaction and communication among scholars that could lead to ideas for writing collaborative papers. AIHII holds an annual convention as a forum of interaction for IR scholars in Indonesia. However, large workloads and inadequate funding limit the forum’s capacity to provide interaction and communication among IR scholars. Hence, it is not easy for scholars to explore new ideas and find potential co-authors. Another problem is the gap in competency among scholars. Based on our observation, there Figure 1. Productivity by gender, 2000–2019. (authors’ compilation) ASEAS 15(1) | 51 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli is a ‘culture’ among Indonesian academics where they tend to write papers not based on their expertise but on pragmatism. For example, a scholar who has expertise in military security might co-author a paper that discusses political-economy issues. Consequently, such collaborative papers reveal expertise gaps among members of a team: Some are competent on the issues, while others are not. Lastly, due to a heavy workload involving mostly administrative tasks, authors often find it difficult to sit together and discuss their writing plans. This is a major problem among Indonesian scholars in all fields of study, not only in political science and IR, and has become a national issue that is acknowledged by the Minister of Education (Putra, 2020; Sucahyo, 2018). Our data also demonstrate that the age of the journal and the percentage of collab- orative work are strongly correlated (see Figure 2). Younger journals have published more collaborative papers than the older ones; for example, Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, the oldest journal, has the lowest percentage of collaborative papers at 12%. Meanwhile, Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, which was established in 2016, has 36% (male-led groups comprise 21%). Meanwhile, the overall authorship pattern (Table 3) indicates men tend to work and publish with other men, as the percentage of the all-male team is almost dou- ble that of the all-female team. This higher gender homophily among men limits Figure 2. Percentage of collaborative papers by journal. (authors’ compilation) Authorship Pattern % Solo Male 48.40 All Male Team 7.79 Male-led Collaboration 4.60 Solo Female 31.42 All Female Team 3.70 Female-led Collaboration 4.09 Table 3. Gendered authorship pattern. (authors’ compilation) 52 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia women’s opportunities for leadership in scholarly publications (Dion & Mitchell, 2020; Teele & Thelen, 2017). In addition, as we look deeper into the patterns of col- laboration in each journal, it is evident that men are more inclined to collaborate with other men: 33% to 52% of collaborative papers were published by male-only authors. In contrast, all-female teams range from as low as 5 to 25% (see Figure 3). Hence, the data suggests women’s leadership fares differently in IR journals, with the strongest shown in the Andalas Journal of International Studies and the weakest in the Journal of ASEAN Studies. Language All Indonesian IR journals except the Journal of ASEAN Studies accept manuscripts both in Indonesian and English. However, the trend suggests that men are more like- ly than women to write in English (see Figure 4). Male contributors and male-led authors consistently published their articles in both English and Indonesian, except in 2004 when all their articles were in Indonesian. Meanwhile, all papers by female contributors and female-led authors were in Indonesian during 2001–2006 and in 2008. The graph indicates a gender gap in the level of preference in publishing in English. This lack of preference, then, contributes to the lower share of female authors in the Journal of ASEAN Studies, the English-only journal. Nevertheless, female authors are showing promising development as the percentage of English articles has tripled in the last decade. Thus, the overall comparison shows that in some years both genders had published more papers in English than in Indonesian. These trend lines reflect that more papers could be published in English in the future, allowing studies pub- lished in Indonesian IR journals to have a wider readership, and potentially increase citations. Figure 3. Distribution of collaborative papers by journal. (authors’ compilation) ASEAS 15(1) | 53 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli Topics Titles The following table displays the top 10 words used in the titles of articles. Both men and women have written mostly about ‘Indonesia’ and ‘ASEAN’. The latter is quite self-explanatory as the country is one of the major players in the region. It was also evident that both genders are equally interested in observing ‘China’ as a dominant power in Asia. They also shared great interest in the study of ‘security’, ‘policy’, ‘diplo- macy’, and ‘development’. Aside from the similarities in interests, women used words such as ‘environmen- tal’, ‘women’, ‘human’, and ‘Japan’ significantly more than men in their article titles. Figure 4. Percentage of papers in English and Indonesian (2000–2019). (authors’ compilation) Rank Men Women Words % Words % 1 Indonesia 2.1 Indonesia 2.4 2 Policy 1.6 International 1.3 3 Security, ASEAN 1.3 ASEAN 1.2 4 International, China 1.2 Policy, Security 1.1 5 Economic, Indonesian 1.1 China, Diplomacy 1 6 Relations, Foreign 1 Foreign, South, Indonesian 0.9 7 Global 0.9 Development, Role, Cooperation, Women 0.8 8 South, Diplomacy, Asia 0.8 Government, Countries, Asia 0.7 9 Development, Conflict, Maritime 0.7 Relations, Economic, Japan 0.6 10 Crisis, Southeast, Political, Analysis 0.6 Conflict, Challenges, Human, Perspective, Environmental, Issues, States, United, Chinese 0.5 Table 4. Top 10 words used on title by gender. (authors’ compilation) 54 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia This finding from Indonesia is in line with studies in the US and other Western soci- eties, where issues related to women and the environment seem to be less attractive for male authors to engage in (Key & Sumner, 2019). Women tend to write less about ‘maritime’ than men, indicating the interest gap between the two sexes. Keywords In order to further scrutinize the interest gaps between men and women in their scientific writings, we analyzed the keywords from each paper published. We then plotted the words with the point disparities shown in Figure 5. The prevalence of keywords used by female authors is presented in red dots, while those of the male authors are in blue. Topics in which women are strongly dominating include ‘pub- lic’, ‘rights’, ‘culture’, ‘Japan’, ‘gender’, ‘women’, ‘people’, ‘environmental’, ‘trafficking’, and ‘workers’. The disparity between men and women in these subjects is in a range between 0.5% and 0.6%. Also used more frequently by women authors, and yet with less disparity, are keywords such as ‘migrant’, ‘identity’, ‘migration’, ‘social’, and ‘cultural’. Meanwhile, male authors are by far more interested than females in writing on topics such as ‘global’, ‘defence’, ‘theory’, ‘crisis’, and ‘trade’, with the gap ranging from 0.4% up to 0.9%. Furthermore, although both sexes shared an interest in writing on ‘terrorism’, ‘democracy’, ‘strategy’, and ‘conflict’, the prevalence of men covering these issues is slightly higher (0.1% to 0.3%). One important takeaway from this is how men and women are covering some topics with the same level of prevalence. ‘Security’ comprises 2.1% of all keywords from both camps, suggesting men and women are equally passionate about exploring aspects relevant to security. This is a contrast to the findings of others that suggest men are more likely to write about security issues rather than women (Maliniak et al, 2008). Likewise, the gender gap also does not exist for topics like ‘Asia’, ‘military’, ‘cooperation’, and ‘governance’. These results further indicate that scholars in Indonesia have an inward-look- ing perspective. This is not surprising because Indonesia has long been known as an inward-looking country in many aspects: economy, security, and foreign policy (Arif & Kurniawan, 2017; Myint, 1984; Scott, 2019). Hence, papers that discuss inter- national politics are influenced by proximity factors, with Asia, ASEAN, and China being the most frequently discussed topics. Lastly, security, in the broadest sense, continues to be the most attractive topic for Indonesian scholars. For the male schol- ars, security is possibly related to realism, because we can see from the chart that men frequently use the keyword ‘realism’ more than women. This follows the global trend that realism is the most attractive paradigm for male scholars (Maliniak et al., 2008). CONCLUSION As presented in this article, the data from Indonesia offers an interesting insight into the nature of gendered authorship in a Global South context. Some of the findings corroborate previous studies that highlight the productivity gap between male and female IR scholars (Hancock et al., 2013). However, the gap is not as severe as in the ASEAS 15(1) | 55 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli Figure 5. Prevalence of keywords by gender. (authors’ compilation) 56 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia US, where female authors comprise only 14% of all published articles in 12 top IR journals between 1980 and 2007 (Maliniak et al., 2008). Another similarity is research interests that tend to divide men and women into so-called masculine and feminine topics (Key & Sumner, 2019). Women dominate conversations that include keywords such as ‘culture’, ‘gender’, ‘environmental’, ‘trafficking’, and ‘workers’. On the other hand, male authors are by far more interested in writing on topics with keywords such as ‘theory’, ‘crisis’, and ‘trade’ than female authors. However, it is worth noting that there is no gender gap for topics such as ‘secu- rity’, ‘military’, and ‘governance’. This finding offers little support to a previous study that suggested that men are more likely than women to write about security issues in an international context (Maliniak et al, 2008). Research on these three issues seems to be a shared interest between both sexes of IR scholars in Indonesia. Therefore, we argued that gendered preferences may not always be the best evidence to suggest that IR is dominated by men (Kadera, 2013; Tickner & Sjoberg, 2011), at least not accord- ing to the experience of Indonesian IR scholars. Some limitations to this study need to be acknowledged. One caveat is that the study focuses only on gendered authorship in academic journals. Future research should consider analysing textbooks and IR curricula in Indonesia and other devel- oping countries. It will also be interesting to observe the citation gap between male and female authors in the Global South setting. Despite the current limitations, this study contributes to an understanding of how gendered authorship takes place in a non-Western setting. More research is needed to unpack the connection between research and foreign policy. Does research influence foreign policymaking, or does it work the other way around? Which foreign policy dictates the themes, narratives, and scientific conversations?  REFERENCES Abu-Laban, Y., Sawer, M., & St-Laurent, M. (2018). IPSA Gender and diversity monitoring report 2017. https:// www.ipsa.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/IPSA_Gender_and_Diversity_Monitoring_Report_2017_ web_version_2018.07.23.pdf Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569. AIHII. (2022a). Perguruan Tinggi. https://aihii.or.id/perguruan-tinggi/ AIHII. (2022b). Jurnal Prodi. http://aihii.or.id/jurnal-prodi/ Aiston, S. J., & Fo, C. K. (2020). The silence/ing of academic women. Gender and Education, 33(2), 1–18. Aiston, S. J., & Yang, Z. (2017). “Absent data, absent women”: Gender and higher education leadership. Policy Futures in Education, 15(3), 262–274. Akhtar, P., Fawcett, P., Legrand, T., Marsh, D., & Taylor, C. (2005). Women in the political science professi- on. European Political Science, 4(3), 242–255. APSA. (2005). Women’s advancement in political science: A report of the APSA workshop on the advancement of women in academic political science in the United States. American Political Science Association. Arif, M., & Kurniawan, Y. (2017). Strategic culture and Indonesian maritime security. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(1), 77–89. Atchison, A. L. (2018). Towards the good profession: Improving the status of women in political science. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 1(1-2), 279–298. ASEAS 15(1) | 57 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli Bates, S., Jenkins, L., & Pflaeger, Z. (2012). Women in the profession: The composition of UK political science departments by sex. Politics, 32(3), 139–152. Bates, S., & Savigny, H. (2015). Introduction: Women in European political science. European Political Science, 14(2), 75–78. Bennie, L., & Topf, R. (2003). The PSA’s survey of the profession 2002. The Annual Conference of the PSA. The University of Leicester. Bonjour, S., Mügge, L., & Roggeband, C. (2016). Lost in the mainstream? Gender in Dutch political science education. European Political Science, 15(3), 303–313. Breuning, M. (2010). Women and Publishing in International Studies. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press. Breuning, M., Gross, B. I., Feinberg, A., Martinez, M., Sharma, R., & Ishiyama, J. (2018). Clearing the pipe- line? Gender and the review process at the American Political Science Review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 629–634. Breuning, M., & Sanders, K. (2007). Gender and journal authorship in eight prestigious political science journals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(2), 347–351. Curtin, J. (2013). Women and political science in New Zealand. Political Science, 65(1), 63–83. Dion, M. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2020). How many citations to women is “enough”? Estimates of gender representation in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(1), 107–113. Evans, H. K., & Moulder, A. (2011). Reflecting on a decade of women’s publications in four top political science journals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 793–798. Fotaki, M. (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1251–1275. Hancock, K. J., Baum, M. A., & Breuning, M. (2013). Women and pre-tenure scholarly productivity in international studies: An investigation into the leaky career pipeline. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 507–527. Kadera, K. M. (2013). The social underpinnings of women’s worth in the study of world politics: Culture, leader emergence, and coauthorship. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 463–475. Key, E. M., & Sumner, J. L. (2019). You research like a girl: Gendered research agendas and their implica- tions. PS: Political Science & Politics, 52(4), 663–668. Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work, and Organization, 10(2), 213–238. Livingstone-Peters, S. (2020, March 3). Women in leadership: addressing equal gender representation in political science. International Science Council. https://council.science/current/blog/women-in- leadership-addressing-equal-gender-representation-in-political-science/ Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2008). Women in international relations. Politics & Gender, 4(1), 122–144. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2012). TRIP around the world: Teaching, research, and policy views of international relations faculty in 20 countries. The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, The College of William and Mary, VA. Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922. Maliniak, D., & Tierney, M. J. (2009). The American school of IPE. Review of International Political Economy, 16(1), 6–33. Mitchell, S. M., & Hesli, V. L. (2013). Women don't ask? Women don't say no? Bargaining and service in the political science profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(2), 355-369. Monroe, K. R., & Chiu, W. F. (2010). Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(2), 303-308. Myint, H. (1984). Inward and outward-looking countries revisited: The case of Indonesia.  Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 20(2), 39-52. Østby, G., Strand, H., Nordås, R., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2013). Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? Publication patterns and citation rates for Journal of Peace Research, 1983–2008. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 493-506. 58 | ASEAS 15(1) Gender in Academic Journals: Experience From Indonesia Phull, K., Ciflikli, G., & Meibauer, G. (2019). Gender and bias in the International Relations curriculum: Insights from reading lists. European Journal of International Relations, 25(2), 383-407. Putra, I. P. (2020). Nadiem Janji Benahi Persoalan Beban Administrasi Dosen [Nadiem Promises to Fix Lecturer Administration Burden Issues]. Medcom.id. https://www.medcom.id/pendidikan/news- pendidikan/zNPGgdEK-nadiem-janji-benahi-persoalan-beban-administrasi-dosen. Ristek Dikti. (2020a). Pangkalan Data Pendidikan Tinggi [Higher Education Database]. https://forlap. ristekdikti.go.id/prodi/search Ristek Dikti. (2020b). SINTA - Science and Technology Index. http://sinta2.ristekdikti.go.id/about Savigny, H. (2017). Cultural sexism is ordinary: Writing and re-writing women in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 24(6), 643-655. Scott, D. (2019). Indonesia grapples with the Indo-Pacific: Outreach, strategic discourse, and diplomacy. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 38(2), 194-217. Sharman, J. C., & True, J. (2011). Anglo-American followers or Antipodean iconoclasts? The 2008 TRIP survey of international relations in Australia and New Zealand.  Australian Journal of International Affairs, 65(2), 148-166. Sjoberg, L. (2008). The norm of tradition: Gender subordination and women's exclusion in International Relations. Politics & Gender, 4(1), 173-180. Steele, J. F. (2016). Japanese political science at a crossroads? Normative and empirical preconditions for the integration of women and diversity into political science. European Political Science, 15(4), 536-555. Sucahyo, N. (2018). Akademisi Indonesia Terbebani Aturan Administrasi [Indonesian Academics Burdened with Administrative Rules]. Voice of America. https://www.voaindonesia.com/amp/akademisi- indonesia-terbebani-aturan-administrasi/4649983.html. Teele, D. L., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science.  PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 433-447. Tetreault, M. A. (2008). Women in International Relations: Sediment, trends, and agency.  Politics & Gender, 4(1), 144-156. Tickner, J. A., & Sjoberg, L. (Eds.). (2011). Feminism and international relations: Conversations about the past, present and future. Routledge. Timperley, C. (2013). Women in the academy: Key studies on gender in political science. Political Science, 65(1), 84–104. Tolleson-Rinehart, S., & Carroll, S. J. (2006). Far from ideal: The gender politics of political science. Ameri- can Political Science Review, 100(4), 507-513. Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2), 529-560. Westendorf, J. K., & Strating, R. (2020). Women in Australian international affairs.  Australian Journal of International Affairs, 74(3), 213-227. Williams, H., Bates, S., Jenkins, L., Luke, D., & Rogers, K. (2015). Gender and journal authorship: an assessment of articles published by women in three top British political science and international relations journals. European Political Science, 14, 116-130. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ella Prihatini teaches international relations at Bina Nusantara (Binus) University, Jakarta, Indonesia. She received her PhD in political science and international relations from the University of Western Australia (UWA). Her research interests focus on women’s political participation, digital diplomacy, comparative studies, and electoral politics in Indonesia. She also serves as an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Muslim States and Societies (CMSS), University of Western Australia (UWA), Perth. ► Contact: ella.prihatini@binus.edu mailto:ella.prihatini@binus.edu ASEAS 15(1) | 59 Ella Prihatini & Wendy Prajuli Wendy Andhika Prajuli is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Bina Nusantara (Binus) University, Jakarta. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D. at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin. ► Contact: wprajuli@binus.ac.id DISCLOSURE The authors declare no conflict of interest. mailto:wprajuli@binus.ac.id