I don't actually want to be arguing against this study, but without knowing how those two fields are quantified, those numbers are completely meaningless and referring to fuzzy numbers like that is one of the hallmark ways to lie with statistics.
There are also lots of uncontrolled variables, such as the average woman submitting 1.4 reviews, while the average guy submitted only 1.3 reviews. This means the totals would obviously be off, even if everything were symmetric per capita, a fact not mentioned when the numbers are displayed.
Further, it's likely that the discrepancy in the number of reviews per capita submitted is a sign of some underlying sampling bias, which needs to be accounted for before we can really talk about the distribution of feedback.
I think this is a serious issue that needs addressing, but that's exactly why I feel it's important to object to bad math.
There are also lots of uncontrolled variables, such as the average woman submitting 1.4 reviews, while the average guy submitted only 1.3 reviews. This means the totals would obviously be off, even if everything were symmetric per capita, a fact not mentioned when the numbers are displayed.
Further, it's likely that the discrepancy in the number of reviews per capita submitted is a sign of some underlying sampling bias, which needs to be accounted for before we can really talk about the distribution of feedback.
I think this is a serious issue that needs addressing, but that's exactly why I feel it's important to object to bad math.