Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors (e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T. McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows that the average difference between ratings of men and women is negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous, the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the inconsistency of findings are discussed.