scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines.

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
In this paper, a bibliometric analysis of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines.
Abstract
There is extensive, yet fragmented, evidence of gender differences in academia suggesting that women are underrepresented in most scientific disciplines and publish fewer articles throughout a career, and their work acquires fewer citations. Here, we offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in performance through a bibliometric analysis of academic publishing careers by reconstructing the complete publication history of over 1.5 million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13 disciplines. We find that, paradoxically, the increase of participation of women in science over the past 60 years was accompanied by an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact. Most surprisingly, though, we uncover two gender invariants, finding that men and women publish at a comparable annual rate and have equivalent career-wise impact for the same size body of work. Finally, we demonstrate that differences in publishing career lengths and dropout rates explain a large portion of the reported career-wise differences in productivity and impact, although productivity differences still remain. This comprehensive picture of gender inequality in academia can help rephrase the conversation around the sustainability of women’s careers in academia, with important consequences for institutions and policy makers.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists.

TL;DR: A survey of principal investigators indicates that female scientists, those in the ‘bench sciences’ and, especially, scientists with young children experienced a substantial decline in time devoted to research under COVID-19.
Journal ArticleDOI

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

TL;DR: It is found that women-led work tends to be undercited relative to expectations and this imbalance is driven largely by the citation practices of men and is increasing over time as the field diversifies.
Posted ContentDOI

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

TL;DR: It is found that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender were not a factor in referencing, and this overcitation of men and undercitation of women is driven largely by the citation practices of men, and is increasing over time as the field becomes more diverse.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data

TL;DR: This work proposes a principled statistical framework for discerning and quantifying power-law behavior in empirical data by combining maximum-likelihood fitting methods with goodness-of-fit tests based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistic and likelihood ratios.
Journal ArticleDOI

The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis

TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich's extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals) to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented.
Journal ArticleDOI

Nepotism and sexism in peer-review

TL;DR: In the first-ever analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications, the system is revealed as being riddled with prejudice.
Journal ArticleDOI

Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science

TL;DR: Sugimoto et al. as mentioned in this paper presented a bibliometric analysis confirming that gender imbalances persist in research output worldwide, and they concluded that gender imbalance persists in all fields.
Journal ArticleDOI

Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science

TL;DR: It is concluded that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed.
Related Papers (5)