Systemic Gender Inequities in Who Reviews Code
Emerson R. Murphy-Hill, Jillian Dicker, Amber Horvath, Margaret Morrow Hodges, Carolyn D. Egelman, Laurie R. Weingart, Ciera Jaspan, Collin Green, Nina Chen
Abstract
CIERA JASPAN, Google, United States COLLIN GREEN, Google, United States NINA CHEN, Google, United States Code review is an essential task for modern software engineers, where the author of a code change assigns other engineers the task of providing feedback on the author's code. In this paper, we investigate the task of code review through the lens of equity, the proposition that engineers should share reviewing responsibilities fairly. Through this lens, we quantitatively examine gender inequities in code review load at Google. We found that, on average, women perform about 25% fewer reviews than men, 1 an inequity with multiple systemic antecedents, including authors' tendency to choose men as reviewers, a recommender system's amplification of human biases, and gender differences in how reviewer credentials are assigned and earned. Although substantial work remains to close the review load gap, we show how one small change has begun to do so. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Computer supported cooperative work; Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c8442216-f261-4ea5-bcc9-42d1431e9ec4Cited by top-tier papers2
- A Systematic Literature Review on Equity and Technology in HCI and Fairness: Navigating the Complexities and Nuances of Equity ResearchSeyun Kim, Yuanchen Bai, Haiyi Zhu, Motahhare EslamiCSCW 2025 · 14 citations
- GenderMag Improves Discoverability in the Field, Especially for Women: An Multi-Year Case Study of Suggest Edit, a Code Review FeatureEmerson R. Murphy-Hill, Alberto Elizondo, Ambar Murillo, Marian Harbach et al.ICSE 2024 · 13 citations
Builds on2
- Mitigating turnover with code review recommendation: balancing expertise, workload, and knowledge distributionEhsan Mirsaeedi, Peter C. RigbyICSE 2020 · 52 citations
- Biases and differences in code review using medical imaging and eye-tracking: genders, humans, and machinesYu Huang, Kevin Leach, Zohreh Sharafi, Nicholas McKay et al.FSE 2020 · 37 citations
Related papers
- Mitigating the Risk of Defects and Improving Knowledge Distribution with Code Reviewer RecommendersMohammadali Sefidi Esfahani, Peter C. RigbyFSE 2026
- Modeling Review History for Reviewer Recommendation: A Hypergraph ApproachGuoping Rong, Yifan Zhang, Lanxin Yang, Fuli Zhang et al.ICSE 2022 · 20 citations
- Effective Teaching through Code Reviews: Patterns and Anti-patternsAnita Sarma, Nina ChenFSE 2024 · 1 citation
- Destructive Criticism in Software Code Review Impacts InclusionSanuri Dananja Gunawardena, Peter Devine, Isabelle Beaumont, Lola Piper Garden et al.CSCW 2022 · 27 citations
- AUGER: automatically generating review comments with pre-training modelsLingwei Li, Li Yang, Huaxi Jiang, Jun Yan et al.FSE 2022 · 56 citations
