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

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. New study: "Female-led [scientific] teams generate more novel and disruptive ideas. However, they tend to produce articles with fewer scientific impact [sic] compared to their male-led counterparts…Further analysis indicates that this gender bias intensifies in later career stages and with larger team sizes."
https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00335/124962/Female-led-teams-produce-more-innovative-ideas-yet
Update. At the Technische Universität Ilmenau, "#gender has a negative influence on the publication frequency but not on the citation rate."
https://tarupublications.com/doi/10.47974/CJSIM-2024-0019
Taru Publications

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)

#gender

Update. "[The] metric called field-weighted citation impact (#FWCI)…compares citations received by individuals or groups with the average from similar papers in the field. In 2022, male materials scientists based in #India had a 10% higher FWCI than women working in the country. The #gender gap is not so pronounced within other fields."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04004-x
Why is there a citations gender gap in Indian materials science?

Shobhana Narasimhan, chair of the Indian Academy of Science’s initiative on women in science, says attitudes in the field must change more quickly.

Update. #AI / #LLMs "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."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00367
Who Gets Recommended? Investigating Gender, Race, and Country Disparities in Paper Recommendations from Large Language Models

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.

arXiv.org

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."

Sex and gender reporting in scientific papers now strongly recommended by the Emergency Medicine Journal

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 …

Emergency Medicine Journal
Update. "The within-discipline differences [of h-index] by #gender are smallest in the humanities and STEM fields and largest in the medical field."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316913
Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines

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.

Update. New study: "Among nearly 35,000 biological scientists who authored their first paper in 2000, women were more likely than men to have stopped publishing after 5, 10 or 20 years. The size of this #gender gap varies between disciplines."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00021-6
(#paywalled)
Who’s quitting academia? Data reveal gender gaps in surprising fields

Even in scientific areas in which women are well represented, they are up to 40% more likely than men to leave research within 20 years.

Update. There are many studies of #gender bias in academic publishing. Having tracked them for years in this Mastodon thread (and an earlier Twitter thread), I agree with this new study that "methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies." The authors propose a standardized "framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures." This "will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18129
Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards

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.

arXiv.org
Update. In the field of public administration, "when women are first authors, the research team is more likely to contain other women and while women are increasingly represented in coauthorship structures, men-only groups of coauthors continue to persist."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.13923

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

#Gender #ScholComm

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

#Gender #ScholComm

Editors-in-chief in social sciences: Mapping the institutional, geographical, and gender representation between academic fields

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."

Track gender ratios in research to keep countries, institutions and publishers accountable

Nature Index data reveal how countries and fields differ in gender equity in research.

Update. "Data from the Nature Index reveal the slow erosion of the #gender gap in global research publishing over the past decade. But with just 27% of high-quality papers in the natural sciences having female co-authors in 2024, there is a lot of room for improvement. In the health sciences — where women have a stronger presence — that figure sits at 41%."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00553-x
Gender gap in research publishing is improving — slowly

A Nature Index data set shows which countries, institutions and topic areas are making the greatest progress towards gender equity in research.

Update. In the fields of #NLP and #LIS, "papers with different #gender compositions achieve varying numbers of citations, with mixed-gender collaborations gradually obtaining higher average citation counts compared to same-gender collaborations."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101662
Update. New study: In #Africa, the percentage of journal articles written by women has "grown significantly, with Engineering and Technology rising from 16% to 21%, Physical Sciences from 19% to 23%, and Life Sciences and Biomedicine from 29% to 35%. In contrast, gains in social sciences were more modest, with Arts and Humanities remaining stable at 28% and Social Sciences increasing slightly from 26% to 28%."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.2007

Update. For research in #Brazil "indexing biases disproportionately affect researchers focusing on locally relevant topics through articles that are written in Portuguese. Given women's overrepresentation in this group, our findings illustrate how indexing biases contribute to gender inequalities in science."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391183750_Occluded_Topics_The_hidden_half_of_Brazilian_research

#Gender #GenderBias #Multilingualism #MultilingualResearch

Update. New study: "Male first authors have higher #retraction rates, particularly for scientific misconduct such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, ethical issues, duplication, and fabrication/falsification. No significant gender differences were found in retractions attributed to mistakes."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S175115772500046X

Update. "Since 2017, the #UK has mandated organisations employing more than 250 people to publicly report their annual #gender #PayGap…Every science publisher pays men more than women. In 2024, the lowest median pay gap favouring men was 9.5% (#SpringerNature), followed by #Sage (13.3%), #Wiley (17.7%), and #Informa (formerly Taylor & Francis) (22.7%). #Elsevier remains an outlier in the magnitude of its gender pay gap and in the lack of progress. Eight years ago Elsevier stood out among publishers, with a median pay gap in 2017 of 40.4% in favour of men over women in its UK business…Elsevier’s median pay gap for 2024 is 32.8%, maintaining its position as worst performer among peers over all eight years of mandatory reporting."
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004673

#Publishers #ScholComm

Gender pay gaps and inequity at science publishers

Update. New study: "Women are more frequently acknowledged than credited as co-authors…To account for status and disciplinary effects, we examined collaboration pairs composed of highly cited (high-status) and less cited (low-status) scientists. In such collaborations, the highly cited scientist is more likely to be listed as a co-author, regardless of gender. Notably, highly cited women in these pairs are even more likely to be listed as co-authors than their male counterparts."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15237
Dissecting the gender divide: Authorship and acknowledgment in scientific publications

The issue of gender bias in scientific publications has been the subject of ongoing debate. One aspect of this debate concerns whether women receive equal credit for their contributions compared to men. Conventional wisdom suggests that women are more likely to be acknowledged than listed as co-authors, a role that carries greater prestige. Here, we analyze data from hundreds of thousands of scientists across nine disciplines and a broad range of publications. Our results confirm persistent gender disparities: women are more frequently acknowledged than credited as co-authors, especially in roles involving investigation and analysis. To account for status and disciplinary effects, we examined collaboration pairs composed of highly cited (high-status) and less cited (low-status) scientists. In such collaborations, the highly cited scientist is more likely to be listed as a co-author, regardless of gender. Notably, highly cited women in these pairs are even more likely to be listed as co-authors than their male counterparts. These findings suggest that power dynamics and perceived success heavily influence how credit is distributed in scientific publishing. The results underscore the role of status in shaping authorship and call for a more nuanced understanding of how gender, power, and recognition interact. This research offers valuable insights for scientists, editors, and funding agencies committed to advancing equity in science.

arXiv.org

New study: "More women-led papers receive at least one media mention in women-underrepresented fields, but they are cited less frequently across all fields. Women authors are underrepresented in national outlets and are more often reported by liberal media. Sentiment analysis shows that men-led papers are more often associated with positive sentiment in news text, while women-led papers elicit more negative sentiment."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10755470251360187

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Update. "Women are significantly underrepresented among highly cited scholars globally (0.255 women per man) and receive fewer citations and have lower h-indexes than men in most regions and disciplines. However, after controlling for productivity and career length, female scholars are cited more than men in the pooled sample, Asia, Europe, and in two fields (natural sciences and exact sciences/physics). Despite this, women’s h-index remains significantly lower than men’s in all regions except Africa and South America, and in all fields except social sciences."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334690

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Gender gap in citations, h-index, and representation: Examining the highly cited authors across continents and disciplines in Google Scholar

This study investigates gender inequalities in academia by examining differences in representation, citations, and h-index between male and female highly cited researchers across disciplines and geographic regions. Using a unique dataset from Google Scholar, this study analyzes 21,509 highly cited authors across 191 fields and all continents. We examine gender disparities in citations, h-index, and representation while controlling for research productivity and career length to determine if female researchers experience different outcomes compared to their male counterparts. The findings reveal that women are significantly underrepresented among highly cited scholars globally (0.255 women per man) and receive fewer citations and have lower h-indexes than men in most regions and disciplines. However, after controlling for productivity and career length, female scholars are cited more than men in the pooled sample, Asia, Europe, and in two fields (natural sciences and exact sciences/physics). Despite this, women’s h-index remains significantly lower than men’s in all regions except Africa and South America, and in all fields except social sciences. This study highlights the persistence of gender inequalities in academic representation and long-term impact, as measured by the h-index. The results suggest that while citation rates for female researchers can match or exceed those of male scholars when productivity is controlled for, structural barriers continue to limit women’s long-term recognition in academia. This research contributes to the understanding of gender disparities among top researchers, showing that while citation parity is possible, significant gender gaps remain in overall academic representation and long-term recognition through h-index measures.

Update. "Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0335059

The article is #OpenAccess. But on the day of publication, this #paywalled comment by Jenna Ahart appeared in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03796-w

Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study

Background Gender disparities in scientific authorship are well documented, yet little is known about gender representation among authors of retracted publications. Methods We analyzed 878 retracted publications from 131 high-impact medical journals across nine clinical disciplines (anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology). Gender was inferred using Gender API for all, first, and last authors. Two analytic samples were constructed based on prediction confidence thresholds (≥60% and ≥70%). We examined gender distribution across authorship positions, number of retractions per author, and disciplinary representation. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests were used to assess group differences. Gender proportions were compared with publication benchmarks from 2008–2017, restricting retraction data to the same period for comparability. Results Among 4,136 authors, 3,909 had full first names, and gender could be assigned to 3,865 (98.9%). In the sample with prediction confidence ≥60% (n = 3,743), 863 (23.1%) were identified as women. They accounted for 16.5% (123/747) of first and 12.7% (87/687) of last authors. They had significantly fewer retractions per author and were less likely to have >5 retractions (all authors: 3 women [8.1%] vs 34 men [91.9%], p < 0.001). Across most disciplines, their representation was below publication benchmarks. Dermatology (retractions = 80.0%, publications = 48.9–51.8%) and radiology (retractions = 40.0%, publications = 31.0-36.8%) were exceptions among first authors, while pediatrics (retractions = 50.0%, publications = 37.0%−42.6%) was an exception among last authors, though all based on small numbers. Conclusions Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions. Further research is needed to clarify underlying mechanisms.

Update. "Authors with very feminine and masculine first names respectively get a lower and higher share of citations for every article published, irrespective of their contribution role."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08219

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Any Old Tom, Dick or Harry: The Citation Impact of First Name Genderedness

This paper attempts a first analysis of citation distributions based on the genderedness of authors' first name. Following the extraction of first name and sex data from all human entity triplets contained in Wikidata, a first name genderedness table is first created based on compiled sex frequencies, then merged with bibliometric data from eponymous, US-affiliated authors. Comparisons of various cumulative distributions show that citation concentrations fluctuations are highest at the opposite ends of the genderedness spectrum, as authors with very feminine and masculine first names respectively get a lower and higher share of citations for every article published, irrespective of their contribution role.

arXiv.org

Update. "In male-dominated fields, women have significantly broader research interests than men, while this gap diminishes and reverses in more gender-balanced fields. Although broader publication trajectories help women increase publication output, this strategy carries steeper citation penalties for women than for men. The results suggest that academic fields act as sites of inequality production, channeling women toward research patterns that boost immediate productivity while undermining long-term scholarly influence."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23780231251396273

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Update. In the field of oil pollution research, "female authors accounted for about 32% of the total authors…were significantly underrepresented in most of the African countries [and in] the UK and Norway…Gender variation in oil pollution publications was discovered to be influenced by religion in Africa; Islam had the mean highest rank when compared with Christianity."
https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v29i11.22

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Update. "We conduct a comprehensive comparison between peer-review scores and citation-based metrics across various scientific fields [in Italy]…While both evaluation methods exhibit sex bias, peer review systematically penalizes women more severely than citation-based metrics."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725001245

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Update. A letter to the editor about a study I posted to this thread 11/23/25: "The suggestion that [the lower #retraction rate for women] is because male researchers undergo more scrutiny, propose bolder ideas and lead larger and more dynamic teams than do female researchers implies that male scientists are better at science. As female scientists, our lived experience points to alternative explanations: elevated rigour and scientific integrity by female scientists or more critical peer review of female-led manuscripts."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00120-y
(#paywalled)

#Gender #GenderBias #ScholComm

Don’t assume that women’s low retraction rates reflect male ‘boldness’

Letter to the Editor

@petersuber Wow, that is shocking, especially since we know how many resources Elsevier has at its disposal.
@petersuber May I suggest not putting “Update” at the beginning of every post? I find it confusing, it makes me think the post is an update of some previous post that I should read first.
@benjamingeer
I see your point. But I only use "update" this way for posts in a thread on a single topic. In this case, the thread is on gender differences, including gender bias, in academic publishing.
@petersuber I understand the principle, but unfortunately the only way to find out what the thread is about is to scroll all the way up to the top (currently 70 posts). So I much prefer self-contained posts or short threads.