My opinion on the paper is that the abstract doesn't reflect adequately the content of the paper.
The last assertion, that the "results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless" seems to indicate that the paper results didn't confirmed the desired hypothesis but that there was need to highlight any incidence of gender bias anyway.
The conclusion that there is gender bias on the acceptance of pull requests by women while outsiders (as opposed on women as insiders or men in general) seems to be excessive sub-categorization in order to find a supporting result as the hypothesis doesn't hold for women as whole nor for the subcategory of identifiable women.
It is a very good result, demonstrating that, at least for something so unrelated to the average workplace as Github repositories can be (being in general remote, voluntary and more likely than not to liberal in tendencies due to the FLOSS philosophy), that an useful line of code is an useful line of code, regardless of who wrote it.
The last assertion, that the "results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless" seems to indicate that the paper results didn't confirmed the desired hypothesis but that there was need to highlight any incidence of gender bias anyway.
The conclusion that there is gender bias on the acceptance of pull requests by women while outsiders (as opposed on women as insiders or men in general) seems to be excessive sub-categorization in order to find a supporting result as the hypothesis doesn't hold for women as whole nor for the subcategory of identifiable women.
It is a very good result, demonstrating that, at least for something so unrelated to the average workplace as Github repositories can be (being in general remote, voluntary and more likely than not to liberal in tendencies due to the FLOSS philosophy), that an useful line of code is an useful line of code, regardless of who wrote it.