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
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
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)
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."
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%."
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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/
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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
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/
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…
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'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/
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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,”...
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
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.
Update. The Journal of Cardiac Failure switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review to increase the number of its women authors. Three years later it reports the results.
https://onlinejcf.com/article/S1071-9164(24)00378-6/abstract
(#paywalled)
"The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3 while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time around 21-22%."
Update. In #EasternEurope "the highest percentage of female authored articles was in journals from #Slovenia (mean = 47.28%) and a lowest in journals from #Azerbaijan (mean = 29.30%)."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10737547
(#paywalled)
This paper investigates the performance of several representative large models in the tasks of literature recommendation and explores potential biases in research exposure. The results indicate that not only LLMs' overall recommendation accuracy remains limited but also the models tend to recommend literature with greater citation counts, later publication date, and larger author teams. Yet, in scholar recommendation tasks, there is no evidence that LLMs disproportionately recommend male, white, or developed-country authors, contrasting with patterns of known human biases.
Update. The _Emergency Medicine Journal_ commits to reporting #clinicaltrial data broken down by #sex and #gender.
https://emj.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/06/emermed-2024-214743
"Despite…widely reported gender disparities [in medical risks and conditions], we still rarely see the results of clinical trials disaggregated by sex…We must begin now with better data, better approaches to analysis and better reporting…We know that authors don’t always read the not-so-fine print in our guidance, so it will be on us as editors to remind authors to report sex-disaggregated results when possible. We welcome readers to hold us to our word, assuring that this happens."
Editorial linked to: Astin-Chamberlain R, Pott J, Cole E, et al . Sex and gender reporting in UK emergency medicine trials from 2010 to 2023: a systematic review. Emergency Medicine Journal Published Online First: 11 September 2024. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2024-214054. The under-representation of women in clinical trials has been well documented but even less appreciated is the lack of attention to potential differences in outcomes according to sex and gender. Due to differences in body size and composition, sex hormones and metabolism, as well as important social determinants of health, we cannot infer that research findings in men can always be generalised to women. Just like age, race, education, socioeconomic status, comorbidities and many other categories that our patients fall into, sex and gender can have an effect on the way patients present with the same illness, the way patients respond to medications and the potential for toxicity. Studies have suggested that women with acute myocardial infarction are more likely than men to experience symptoms such as dyspnoea or palpitations in addition to chest pain1 and (once diagnosed) women receive evidence-based treatments less often than men.2 For reasons still not clear, we know that men were more likely to have severe …
Scholars and university administrators have a vested interest in building equitable valuation systems of academic work for both practical (e.g., resource distribution) and more lofty purposes (e.g., what constitutes “good” research). Well-established inequalities in science pose a difficult challenge to those interested in constructing a parsimonious and fair method for valuation as stratification occurs within academic disciplines, but also between them. The h-index, a popular research metric, has been formally used as one such method of valuation. In this article, we use the case of the h-index to examine how the distribution of research metrics reveal within and between discipline inequalities. Using bibliometric data from 1960-2019 on over 50,000 high performing scientists—the top 2% most frequently cited authors—across 174 disciplines, we construct random effects within-between models predicting the h-index. Results suggest significant within-discipline variation in several forms, specifically sole-authorship and female penalties. Results also show that a sole authorship penalty plays a significant role in well-known between-discipline variation. Field-specific models emphasize the “apples-to-oranges,” or incommensurable, property of cross-discipline comparison with significant heterogeneity in sole-authorship and female penalties within fields. In conclusion, we recommend continued caution when using the h-index or similar metrics for valuation purposes and the prioritization of substantive valuations from disciplinary experts.
Gender biases in scholarly metrics remain a persistent concern, despite numerous bibliometric studies exploring their presence and absence across productivity, impact, acknowledgment, and self-citations. However, methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies, potentially perpetuating misperceptions and hindering effective interventions. A review of 70 relevant publications over the past 12 years reveals a wide range of approaches, from name-based and manual searches to more algorithmic and gold-standard methods, with no clear consensus on best practices. This variability, compounded by challenges such as accurately disambiguating Asian names and managing unassigned gender labels, underscores the urgent need for standardized and robust methodologies. To address this critical gap, we propose the development and implementation of ``Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards." These cards will provide a structured framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, SoDA Cards will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings, ultimately supporting evidence-informed policymaking and enabling the longitudinal tracking of analytical approaches in the study of gender and other social biases in academia.
Update. "Mixed-gender teams are more likely to face #retractions than all-male or all-female teams, while individual authors are less prone to retractions…Male-led publications are often retracted for serious ethical violations, such as data falsification and plagiarism, while female-led publications primarily face procedural errors and updates in rapidly evolving fields. Promoting women to positions of responsibility in mix-collaborations may not only advances gender equity but also the accuracy of the scientific record."
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00353
Update. New study: In the social sciences, "male editors-in-chief outnumber females across most fields (66.67%), countries (76.60%), and affiliations (63.16%)."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317931
This study systematically maps the network structure of the editors-in-chief in social sciences journals, focusing on their gender representation, geographical distribution, and institutional composition. Drawing upon large-scale data from 3,320 JCR-ranked journals of 57 different fields in the social sciences (4,868 editors-in-chief from 1,485 affiliations of 71 countries), the study aims to illustrate the current connections of editorial leadership in social sciences. Findings reveal that two countries—the U.S. and the U.K.—and their institutions shape almost all fields of the social sciences, with institutions from other geographies, particularly non-English-speaking countries, being substantially underrepresented. However, there is no central institution that dominates across all fields, but within dominant geographies, a reduced number of different affiliations prevail in the most important intellectual terrains. In terms of gender representation, there is a significant imbalance across all dimensions under study. Male editors-in-chief outnumber females across most fields (66.67%), countries (76.60%), and affiliations (63.16%). All in all, by critically mapping the connections of editors-in-chief in social sciences journals, this study seeks to advance our understanding of the current structure of editorial governance and, in turn, stimulate initiatives aimed at fostering a more representative leadership in social science, keeping levels of scientific excellence constant.
Update. From a _Nature_ editorial.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00891-w
"It’s no secret that women’s participation in research is not reflected in the literature on a par with men’s, and that other #gender identities are all but invisible. The gap is particularly wide in some disciplines, notably the physical sciences…as well as at more-senior levels. But are some fields making more progress than others? If so, what can be learnt from them…? These are some of the questions that reporters and data analysts from Nature Index set out to investigate in their project, Nature Index Author Gender Ratio, launched in 2024. This week, they report some early results."