Early in the pandemic (April 2020) I started what became a long #Twitter thread on #gender #bias in academic #publishing.
https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1252981139855355904

Starting today, I'm stopping it on Twitter and continuing it on #Mastodon.

Here's a rollup of the complete Twitter thread.
https://resee.it/tweet/1252981139855355904

Here's a nearly complete archived version in the @waybackmachine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220908134128/https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1252981139855355904

Watch this space for updates.

#academia
@academicchatter

🧵

Peter Suber (@[email protected]) on X

Since the pandemic shutdown began, journal submissions of co-authored papers, with women among the co-authors, are slightly up, and solo-authored papers by women are significantly down. https://t.co/wk1S7N1pVX

X (formerly Twitter)

Update. In political science, "journal articles authored exclusively by female scholars score 27% lower on average [on Altmetric Attention Scores, AAS] than exclusively male-authored outputs. However, men are also more likely to write articles with an AAS of zero. These patterns are shaped by the presence of high-scoring male 'superstars' whose research attracts much online attention."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41304-023-00431-y

#Altmetrics #Gender #PoliticalScience

Alternative metrics, traditional problems? Assessing gender dynamics in the altmetrics of political science - European Political Science

Altmetrics are an emerging form of bibliometric measurement that capture the online dimension of scholarly exchange. Against the backdrop of both a higher education landscape increasingly focused on quantifying research productivity and impact, as well as literature emphasising the need to address gender bias in the discipline, we consider whether and how altmetrics (re)produce gendered dynamics in political science. Using a novel dataset on the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) of political science research, we investigate two questions: Do AAS vary by gender? And how do AAS relate to gendered social media dynamics? We find that AAS reproduce gendered dynamics found in disciplinary publication and citation practices. For example, journal articles authored exclusively by female scholars score 27% lower on average than exclusively male-authored outputs. However, men are also more likely to write articles with an AAS of zero. These patterns are shaped by the presence of high-scoring male “superstars” whose research attracts much online attention. Complementing existing scholarship, we show that the AAS closely overlaps with virality dynamics on Twitter. We suggest that these gendered dynamics may be hidden behind the seemingly neutral, technical character of altmetrics, which is worrisome where they are used to evaluate scholarship.

SpringerLink
Update. "We evaluated how the #gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time…Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time." Imbalances varied greatly by discipline.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.25.542328v1
Update. "We find that sex differences in the number of publications, citations, and citations per publication were small across low and medium levels of productivity, but become more pronounced the higher the level of performance. In the top performing 10% the female proportion decreases from the average 43.2% to 26%."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2023.2223638

Update. "Among all editors [of major #pediatrics journals], 39.2%…were women, and 38.4% of physician editors…were women."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2806837

#Gender #GenderBias

Gender Representation Among Editors of Major Pediatric Journals

This cross-sectional study analyzes inequities in the gender of editors for 3 major pediatric journals.

Update. The 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘰-𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 studied its own publishing history by #gender. "While no gender differences exist in overall acceptance rates for submitted papers, a substantial gender gap exists in the number of submissions."
https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser/mwad041/7220750
Gendered publication patterns in Socio-Economic Review

Abstract. Creating interdisciplinary dialog in the field of socio-economics cannot be separated from the social diversity among scholarly voices within its comm

OUP Academic

Update. "Female scientists were much less likely than their male counterparts to be submitted for #assessment in the last Research Excellence Framework (#REF), according to an analysis."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ref-2021-female-academics-much-less-likely-be-submitted
(#paywalled)

#Gender #UK

REF 2021: female academics ‘much less likely’ to be submitted

Ethnicity and disability status also significant factors influencing likelihood of researchers being submitted, report finds

Times Higher Education (THE)
Update. In #PoliticalScience "mean [#altmetrics] scores are highest on average for mixed-gender authored items (30.54). Exclusively female-authored research generates, on average, the lowest scores (19.23) as compared to exclusively male-authored research (24.49)."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/06/19/altmetric-scores-in-political-science-are-gendered-does-it-matter/
Altmetric scores in Political Science are gendered – does it matter?

Altmetrics are generally seen as indicators for online engagement and attention. However, taking the field of political science as an example, Gustav Meibauer, Kiran Phull, Audrey Alejandro and Gok…

Impact of Social Sciences

Update. Review of _Equity for Women in Science_ by Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière (Harvard University Press, 2023).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02139-x

"#Gender gaps are still with us."

Science’s gender gap: the shocking data that reveal its true extent

Analysis of which researchers publish, get credit, move around, get funding, collaborate and receive citations shows how deeply ingrained the bias against women is.

Update. In the field of #economics, after the #pandemic, "men and women both experienced production increases [i.e. posted more working papers] with the exception of women between the age of 35 and 49, who experienced no production gains despite large increases for men in the same age group."
https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/36/8/3348/6854998
How Has COVID-19 Impacted Research Production in Economics and Finance?

Abstract. Following the onset of COVID-19, research production in economics and finance (measured by the posting of working papers) increased by 29$\%$. Product

OUP Academic

Update. Women in analytic #philosophy 1896-1960.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-lost-women-of-early-analytic-philosophy

"We looked at all the 3,288 articles that appeared in six [major analytic] philosophy journals between 1896 and 1960…On average, only 4%…were authored by women. Most of these women, 70 in number, are presently forgotten…Only four of the 246 papers presented at meetings of [Society for the Study of the History of Analytical Philosophy, #SSHAP] in the period 2015 to 2019 were about female philosophers – less than 2%."

The lost women of early analytic philosophy | Aeon Essays

Twin forces marginalised the women of early analytic philosophy. Correct those mistakes, and the next generation benefits

Aeon
Update. New study: At least in #Germany, in the field of #economics, "men tend to seek reputation, while women favor visibility through #OpenAccess…Overall female researchers appear to contribute more to the public good of #OpenScience, while their male colleagues focus on private reputation. These findings may offer an additional explanatory channel for the academic #gender gap."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323001580
Update. New study of #editors of medical-education journals published in the global #south: "Among 1219 editors, 57.5% were men. Out of 46 editors in chief (EICs), 34.7% were women, and 60.9% were based in high income countries. No EIC belonged to low-income country. The proportion of female advisory board members was found to be positively correlated with the presence of a female EIC."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2249212

Update. Anna Kristina Hultgren and Pejman Habibie (eds.), _Women in Scholarly Publishing_, a new book from Routledge.

At least temporarily free to read from this link.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Women_in_Scholarly_Publishing/M1rXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1979&printsec=frontcover

Publisher's page, suggesting that the book is not out yet and not OA.
https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Scholarly-Publishing-A-Gender-Perspective/Hultgren-Habibie/p/book/9781032045207

Women in Scholarly Publishing

Women in Scholarly Publishing explores the under-researched topic of gender and scholarly publishing. While often considered separately, the relationship between gender and scholarly publishing has been neglected. Bringing together experts across applied linguistics, this book brings to the fore the challenges and opportunities faced by female academics in both Anglophone and non-Anglophone contexts as they participate in the production and dissemination of knowledge. Contributors show how female scholars’ production and dissemination of knowledge intersect with gendered structures and disciplinary cultures in complex ways. The key strands of work that this volume seeks to bring together include essentialism in gender studies and alternative perspectives on how gender should be viewed and studied in knowledge production and dissemination; the specific ways in which the labour and conditions surrounding scholarly publication are gendered or perceived as gendered; the examination of discourses, texts and genres from a gender perspective; and the continuing gendered and gendering impacts on career trajectories of women academics. While women’s barriers are documented across geopolitical contexts, the book also shows how norms, policies and practices can be challenged and alternative futures imagined. The book will be of interest to researchers, practitioners, institutional decision-makers, writing mentors, early-career scholars and graduate students in a variety of fields.

Google Books
Update. New study, my paraphrase: Gender and racial bias in academic publishing doesn't show up just in acceptance rates, citation rates, and representation rates on editorial boards. It also shows up in publishing rates during times of stress, such as the pandemic. Using publication tallies as an assessment metric can aggravate this bias.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291124
Overemphasis on publications may disadvantage historically excluded groups in STEM before and during COVID-19: A North American survey-based study

Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic’s impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM—especially in a post-COVID-19 era.

Update. In tension with the results above (previous toot, this thread), this study finds that "gender gaps in productivity are highly context-dependent; once scientific field, academic position, institutional affiliation and age are controlled for, most gender differences all but disappear."
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003193586-9/beyond-essentialism-lynn-nygaard-dag-aksnes-fredrik-niclas-piro
Beyond essentialism | 9 | Situating gender and academic publishing | L

Is it possible to say anything meaningful about women and academic publishing without falling into essentialist traps? This chapter unpacks the notion of

Taylor & Francis
Update. New study: "The proportion of positive [supporting] and negative [criticizing] citations was higher for publications whose first/last authors were women (vs. men), while the opposite was true for neutral [mentioning] citations."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04827-x
Author gender and citation categorization: a study of high-impact medical journals - Scientometrics

The number of citations is one of the main bibliometric indicators. However, not all citations can be considered equivalent; scite ( https://scite.ai/ ), a new tool based on artificial intelligence, was developed to determine whether citations are positive, negative or neutral. We assessed whether publications first/last authored by women were more often cited positively (or negatively) than those first/last authored by men. Using the 2021 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor, we selected the ten highest impact journals in nine medical disciplines. Using Web of Science, we extracted all research and review articles published between January 2012 and December 2021 in these journals. We used Namsor to determine first/last authors’ gender and scite to categorize article citations as positive (“supporting”), negative (“contradicting”), neutral (“mentioning”) and “unclassified”. There were 141,921 articles in the database, of which 116,204 had unabbreviated first/last names. We found that the proportion of positive and negative citations was higher for publications whose first/last authors were women (vs. men), while the opposite was true for neutral citations. This is the first study to our knowledge to document the association between gender and citation type. Further research is needed in the future to investigate the reasons for these gender differences, and to assess whether the type of citation is also associated with the gender of the citing author.

SpringerLink

Update. In medical journals, "women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for #misconduct."
https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e48529

#Gender #Medicine #Quality #Retractions

Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.

Journal of Medical Internet Research
Update. New study: "In three relatively #gender-balanced disciplines representing humanities (#history), social sciences (#economics), and natural sciences (#environmental sciences)" male authors consider more different journals before submission and resubmit more often after rejection.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04829-9
Do male and female authors employ different journal choice strategies? - Scientometrics

Compared to their male colleagues, female scientists are less likely to secure senior positions and more likely to drop out of academia. The mechanisms behind these patterns have been the subject of debate in recent years, entailing serious policy implications. In this project we investigate one such mechanism, namely the journal submission strategies of male and female authors. In view of the evidence pertaining to higher self-confidence and/or risk acceptance among males, it may be expected that males would generally tend to follow a more ambitious journal choice strategy. To verify this conjecture, we developed a novel method and looked to acquire a new dataset, surveying scholars in three relatively gender-balanced disciplines representing humanities (history), social sciences (economics), and natural sciences (environmental sciences). Focusing on their specific, recently published papers, we ask about the journals to which they had submitted these papers and the journals to which they could potentially look to engage with. In the 1111 complete responses we found evidence that males are not only more self-confident but also more forward-looking in their journal choice.

SpringerLink

Update. The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (#JPSM) studied its own publishing history and released the results.
https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(23)00739-X/fulltext

"There were differences in acceptance rates by region of residence, ethnicity, and race but not by gender. Asian authors and authors residing in regions outside of North America had greater odds of rejection compared to White or North American authors."

Update. New study (book chapter): "Male researchers publish more papers than female researchers & this difference increases over the course of scientific careers.…By contrast, female researchers achieve higher citation impact & publish in more prestigious journals than male researchers over the course of their careers, especially among researchers with short careers…The results suggest that many women with high potential leave the science system early in their careers."
https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32448/1/Tekles_Alexander.pdf#page=155

Update. New study using #ChatGPT to assess referee reports: "Female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers… In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author."
https://elifesciences.org/articles/90230

#AI #Bias #Gender #PeerReview

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review

Generative artificial intelligence, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, can be used to analyze scientific texts with specialized constructions, including peer review reports.

eLife

Update. "Between 2015 and 2022, our findings suggests that men [in #Germany, in #economics] tend to seek reputation, while women favor visibility through #OpenAccess, at least at the margin. While authorship in teams can dilute these behavioral patterns, female economists publish more single-authored papers. Overall female researchers appear to contribute more to the public good of open science."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104874

Summary by one of the co-authors:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/11/23/female-researchers-are-less-influenced-by-journal-prestige-will-it-hold-back-their-careers/

Update. I missed this piece from March 2022: "This research is the first to comprehensively study the 'gender solo research gap' among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system…The gender solo research gap in #Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04308-7
Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap - Scientometrics

In solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the “gender solo research gap” among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through mean “individual solo publishing rates” found in “individual publication portfolios” constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database (“Polish Science Observatory”) with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N = 25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009–2018, including 18,900 solo articles.

SpringerLink
Update. The doctoral dissertations of women are interdisciplinary less often than those of men, and this could "hinder their [women's] career advancement."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02392-5
Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Interdisciplinary research is a driving force of transformative and innovative science, yet it remains unclear how early-career scientists pursue interdisciplinary research paths. Analyzing data from 675,135 doctoral theses of U.S. Ph.D. graduates who graduated from 1950 to 2016, we study the development of interdisciplinary doctoral theses in the five scientific domains of behavioral sciences, biological sciences, engineering, health and medical sciences, and mathematical and physical sciences. We propose an indicator to measure the degree of interdisciplinarity embedded in the doctoral research by employing co-occurrence matrices of subjects assigned to doctoral theses in the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. This study finds that interdisciplinary doctoral theses have exhibited a growing trend across different scientific domains, and universities of varying research intensity. Since the 1990s, interdisciplinary research has played a dominant role in doctoral theses within the five scientific domains. The results of multivariate regression models suggest persistent gender disparities in the interdisciplinarity level of doctoral theses. Specifically, male-authored doctoral theses demonstrate a higher level of interdisciplinarity than female-authored doctoral theses. In addition, this study suggests that being supervised by female advisors may amplify gender disparities in the interdisciplinarity level of their students’ doctoral theses. The findings indicate the potential underrepresentation of female scientists in pursuing interdisciplinary research at the early stages of their careers. Given that funding agencies have promoted interdisciplinary research and its potential benefits, the lower level of interdisciplinarity in the doctoral theses of female students may hinder their career advancement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that offering increased support to female faculty members may not only directly benefit their career development but also hold considerable significance in promoting future generations of female scientists. The findings of this study have important policy implications for advancing the careers of female scientists.

Nature
Update. New study: "Merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate [gender] bias. Measures accounting for women’s circumstances and needs…and raising editorial awareness to women’s needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294805
Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors

The fairness of decisions made at various stages of the publication process is an important topic in meta-research. Here, based on an analysis of data on the gender of authors, editors and reviewers for 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions to the journal eLife, we report on five stages of the publication process. We find that the board of reviewing editors (BRE) is men-dominant (69%) and that authors disproportionately suggest male editors when making an initial submission. We do not find evidence for gender bias when Senior Editors consult Reviewing Editors about initial submissions, but women Reviewing Editors are less engaged in discussions about these submissions than expected by their proportion. We find evidence of gender homophily when Senior Editors assign full submissions to Reviewing Editors (i.e., men are more likely to assign full submissions to other men (77% compared to the base assignment rate to men RE of 70%), and likewise for women (41% compared to women RE base assignment rate of 30%))). This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. However, we do not find evidence for gender bias when authors appeal decisions made by editors to reject submissions. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias. Measures accounting for women’s circumstances and needs (e.g., delaying discussions until all RE are engaged) and raising editorial awareness to women’s needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication.

Update. "Citation attributions exhibit gender homophily…that is, gender alignment between citing and cited authors. This pattern greatly disadvantages women in fields where they are underrepresented."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895

Summary
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03474-9

Update. From a survey of university faculty in the US: "Males were twice as likely as females to use #AI to recommend journals to which to submit research articles."
https://www.primaryresearch.com/AddCart.aspx?ReportID=790

(Unfortunately the full results are not #OpenAccess and not even close. One copy of the PDF costs $98.)

You are being redirected...

Update. This qualification applies to all the studies I've collected in this thread: "Different research does not understand the concepts of 'man/woman' and 'male/female' in the same way, and there is no discussion nor written consensus on how to tackle these issues ethically and correctly within #Bibliometrics."
https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/handle/10481/88251/Gender1.pdf

Another qualification: Most of these studies determine the sex/gender of authors by using software that makes guesses based on their names.

#Gender

Update. Missed this one from Nov 2017: The #OpenAccess citation advantage (#OACA) is real and it "benefits male and female political scientists at similar rates. Thus, OA negates the gender citation advantage that typically accrues to male political scientists."
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000014

#PoliticalScience #SSH

Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science | PS: Political Science & Politics | Cambridge Core

Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science - Volume 50 Issue 2

Cambridge Core
Update. Nature studied its own recent publication record. It found that just 17% of its submissions were from authors who identify as women. Also found a slightly lower acceptance rate for women than for men (8% v 9%). This editorial outlines steps to do better, inc asking authors to self-report their #gender. The journal promises periodic progress reports.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00640-5
Nature publishes too few papers from women researchers — that must change

This journal will double down on efforts to diversify the pool of corresponding authors and referees.

Update. "Drawing on the archives of the LSE Impact Blog, this review brings together ten posts that explore the gendered nature of research and scholarly communication."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/03/08/women-academia-and-the-unequal-production-of-knowledge-an-lse-impact-blog-review/

#Gender #ScholComm

Women, academia and the unequal production of knowledge – An LSE Impact Blog review

Higher education is often presumed to be a uniquely egalitarian and meritocratic field. However, persistent inequalities within academic work and increasingly the current and historic mechanisms un…

Impact of Social Sciences
Update. In 126 pathology journals, "women made up only 18% of the 141 total editor in chief positions…Among 10 journals with 2 editor in chief positions, 5 had only men and 5 had 1 man and 1 woman. All 3 journals with 3 editor in chief positions had 2 men and 1 woman."
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae018
Analysis of editor in chief gender and associated journal variables among 126 pathology journals

AbstractObjectives. Gender equity studies have shown that women are underrepresented in journal editor in chief positions, which confer major professional oppor

OUP Academic

Update. "I [Cary Wu] show that articles written by women receive comparable or even higher rates of citations than articles written by men. However, women tend to accumulate fewer citations over time and at the career level."

* primary source
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.13189

* summary
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/03/25/why-are-women-cited-less-than-men/

Update. "Women publish less than men, but marriage and family obligations do not generally account for the #gender difference. Married women with children publish as much as their single female colleagues do."
https://doi.org/10.7312/cole21260-017
(#paywalled book chapter)
CHAPTER 15 MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD, AND RESEARCH PERFORMANCE IN SCIENCE (1987)

CHAPTER 15 MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD, AND RESEARCH PERFORMANCE IN SCIENCE (1987) was published in Smoother Pebbles on page 329.

De Gruyter

Update. "Women's contributions [to #OpenSource software projects] tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless."
https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1/

#FOSS #FLOSS #Gender

Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men

Biases against women in the workplace have been documented in a variety of studies. This paper presents the largest study to date on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions from men versus women in an open source software community. Surprisingly, our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, women's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.

PeerJ Preprints

Update. "Male faculty members typically patented their research two to ten times more often than did their female counterparts, although this rate varied by university and discipline. But when we measured the extent to which the two groups’ scientific publications were cited by patents, we found no statistically significant difference. In other words, female scientists’ work is just as close to the technological frontier."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02081-6

#patents

How I’m using AI tools to help universities maximize research impacts

Artificial-intelligence algorithms could identify scientists who need support with translating their work into real-world applications and more. Leaders must step up.

Update. "We show that dropout rates of #mathematicians after their postdoctoral stage, which used to be higher for women, are converging on similar figures for both genders…[But] a non-negligible number of the prestigious mathematical journals…show a meager representation of women among their authors…and exhibit no signs of turnaround over the last couple of decades."
https://content.ems.press/assets/public/full-texts/books/287/chapters/online-pdf/978-3-98547-573-5-chapter-5727.pdf

#Gender #Mathematics

Update. New study: Our findings show "a significant association between female authorship and the choice of #OpenAccess publishing, indicating a female preference for open access."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05089-x
(#paywalled)
Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation - Scientometrics

Prevailing attention centers on the plight of female scientists in modern academia. However, female contributions and potential remain insufficiently recognized. To unravel this veil, we leverage large-scale cross-disciplinary datasets from SciSciNet to portray female participation over the past 20 years and quantify the female effect on research using bibliometric indicators. Female ratio is utilized to gauge gender composition within teams. Through successive modeling including mixed-effect and multivariate regressions, we disentangle the intricate effects of female presence and extent of female participation on research impact and dual innovation metrics. We find a steady rise in female-inclusive teams and per-team female ratios over time, with variations across disciplines and broad categories. We demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between female ratio and citation counts—gender-balanced teams typically garner peak citations, while highly-cited vertices drift toward male-skewed teams in male-majority areas. Increasing female participation yields significant gains in innovation. In the upstream of knowledge flow, as captured by novelty (z-scores), female-skewed teams tend to combine more unconventional knowledge. For the downstream, as encapsulated through disruption, female-skewed teams’ innovation efforts have been recognized by follow-on citations. Notably, the female advantage in innovation becomes more evident in male-dominated fields and intensifies over time. Our study offers insights into the unique academic value and the tremendous scientific contributions of females, providing important visions for institutional and policy reforms.

SpringerLink
Update. New study: "Women’s representation has been considerably extended in the domain of [anti-doping studies] throughout the last two decades. On average, outputs with female corresponding authors yield a higher average citation score."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05094-0
Impact as equalizer: the demise of gender-related differences in anti-doping research - Scientometrics

In general, the presence and performance of women in science have increased significantly in recent decades. However, gender-related differences persist and remain a global phenomenon. Women make a greater contribution to multidisciplinary research, which renders anti-doping research a compelling area for investigating the gendered aspects of academic research. The research design was based on the overall research aim to investigate whether gender in a specific field (ADS) has an effect on different aspects of research impact, including (1) the size of citation impact obtained by the research output, (2) the impact on the development of the knowledge base of ADS, expressed as the capacity of integrating knowledge from different research areas, and (3) the (expected) type of research impact targeting either societal or scientific developments (or both). We used a previously compiled dataset of 1341 scientific outputs. Using regression analysis, we explored the role of authors’ gender in citations and the effect of authorship features on scientific impact. We employed network analysis and developed a novel indicator (LinkScore) to quantify gendered authors’ knowledge integration capacity. We carried out a content analysis on a subsample of 210 outputs to explore gender differences in research goal orientation as related to gender patterns. Women’s representation has been considerably extended in the domain of ADS throughout the last two decades. On average, outputs with female corresponding authors yield a higher average citation score. Regarding women's knowledge integration roles, we can infer that no substantial gender differences can be detected. Dominantly female papers were overrepresented among publications classified as aimed at scientific progress, while the share of male-authored papers was higher in publications classified as aimed at societal progress. Although no significant gender difference was observed in knowledge integration roles, in anti-doping women appear to be more interdisciplinary than men.

SpringerLink
Update. Missed this one from 2021: "Manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women."
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd0299

Update. Missed this one from 2020: "The last three years of reported data all show women leading men in representation in #law schools in the US. This past academic year, however, ushered in a new first: women leading the masthead of each top law journal."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2020/02/11/first-all-women-class-of-top-law-journal-editors-leaves-behind-a-byline-and-legacy/

h/t #ArthurBoston

First All-Women Class Of Top Law Journal Editors Leaves Behind A Byline And Legacy

The last three years of reported data all show women leading men in representation in law schools in the US. This past academic year ushered in a new first: women leading the masthead of each top law journal.

Forbes
Update. Our data show "promising advancements towards gender equity [in academic publishing]…These findings challenge an initial perception of male prolificacy. The positive trends extend to female-led research teams, highlighting a correlation between gender balance and leadership…Contrary to conventional assumptions, developing countries are exhibiting a pronounced evolution in female authorship rates."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000695

Update. Most journals of radiology (60.3%) fail to meet even one of the #SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) criteria. However, those that did had higher journal impact factors.
https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(24)00344-9/fulltext

#DEI #Gender #Impact #JIF

Update. The journal 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 & 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 is calling for submissions on "the relationship between feminism, metascience, and open science."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181MycZzTQ5iuHfbbpuDOE59Y-UKejLGD/view

#Feminism #Gender #OpenScience
@openscience

GandS_metascience_call.pdf

Google Docs
Update. In the humanities, in the period 2000-2014, "male academics published 2917 books (averaging 3.41 books) and the 760 female faculty members published 1918 books (averaging 2.52 books), indicating “gender disparity” in scholarly publishing."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-66170-9_3
(#paywalled)
Major Developments and Events in the Humanities and Scholarly Publishing: 2000–2014

A number of substantive trends in the humanities were evaluated, including undergraduate and graduate student enrollments, the number of college faculty members, humanities degrees and major humanities subjects, the impact of the “serials crisis,”...

SpringerLink
Update. In the field of medical informatics, "only 25% (8/32) of the EiCs [editors in chief]… are female, while females only represent 32.7% (426/1303) of the EB [editorial board] members across journals."
https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/SHTI240364
IOS Press Ebooks - Gender and Geographical Representation on Editorial Board Members of Medical Informatics Journals

Update. "Our results indicate that the ratio of female to male authors keeps increasing steadily across disciplines. The increases are field-neutral —in other words, they are not bigger, for example, in [STEM fields]…The increases are… decelerating in time, which could suggest that the equilibrium of female to male authors may be plateauing. Finally, although the within-field gender gap is decreasing, it actually widened between fields."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08944393241270633

Update. New study: "With roughly the same number of men and women in the world, we should expect this [#gender] gap to close in an equal society. But what we see in reality is a persistent gap in #physics over time."

* Summary
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-gender-gap-physics-stable-century.html

* Primary source with proposed explanation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-024-01799-z

Why the gender gap in physics has been stable for more than a century

As a physicist and data scientist with a keen interest in gender inequality, Fariba Karimi was amazed to discover that the gender gap in physics has remained almost unchanged since 1900. As the citation and coauthorship networks in physics expand, women still make up a small proportion—and the gaps between male and female are getting larger in terms of absolute numbers.

Phys.org
@petersuber Guess who makes up the core voter base of the Crypto-Fascist party that got 21% in the last Swedish parliamentary election. A party that is vocally opposed to, among other things, academic gender studies. Yep. White men with no higher education.
That paper that says women are better coders than men but are judged on their gender? It doesn’t say that at all

As a long-standing proponent of preprints, it bothers me that of all PeerJ’s preprints, by far the one that has had the most attention is Terrell et al. (2016)’s Gender bias in open sou…

Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week
@mike @petersuber some nice reflections in this example of preprints getting premature media coverage.
@mike
Thanks, Mike. Those who read the preprint in my post should also read this critique.
@petersuber This is super interesting. I haven’t read the article, so am curious if the author speculates about actual causes. I can’t help but think about the evidence that suggests that men apply for jobs when they have met a far lower percentage of hiring criteria than women do. Are women waiting longer to publish due to an elevated sense of what being “ready” to publish means?
@kfitz @petersuber Important to consider the unrecognized "care-giving" work that women, especially women of color, do in academia that takes time away from other work, like publishing. This is discussed in many places including Chapters 7 & 10 in the excellent edited volume "Pushing the Margins: Women of Color and Intersectionality in LIS" https://litwinbooks.com/books/pushing-the-margins/
Pushing the Margins - Litwin Books & Library Juice Press

  This book is number three in the Litwin Books/Library Juice Press Series on Critical Race Studies and Multiculturalism in LIS, Rose L. Chou and Annie Pho, series editors. Using intersectionality … Read more Pushing the Margins

Litwin Books & Library Juice Press

@kfitz
That's plausible to me. I've heard people allude to research showing that women win promotion/tenure more often when the criteria are precise than when the criteria are vague and discretionary. (I'm still looking for the research itself, in case anyone has a lead.)

Meantime, do see the rest of this thread.
https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/110425127464555362

petersuber (@[email protected])

Early in the pandemic (April 2020) I started what became a long #Twitter thread on #gender #bias in academic #publishing. https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1252981139855355904 Starting today, I'm stopping it on Twitter and continuing it on #Mastodon. Here's a rollup of the complete Twitter thread. https://resee.it/tweet/1252981139855355904 Here's a nearly complete archived version in the @[email protected]. https://web.archive.org/web/20220908134128/https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1252981139855355904 Watch this space for updates. #academia @[email protected] 🧵

FediScience.org
@petersuber I wouldn’t read the acceptance rate of women as slightly lower. Based on this toot, men have a 1/8 or 12.5 % higher acceptance rate.
@petersuber it's not because I haven't tried 😆