Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science

Larivière, Vincent; Ni, Chong; Gingras, Yves; Cronin, Blaise; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.

doi:10.1038/504211a

Cited by 1,088 publications

(1,031 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

906

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In PAID, only 2.9% of the articles with four or more authors present the authorships in alphabetical order. The relative underrepresentation of women in the senior (last) position is also found in psychology (González-Alvarez & Cervera-Crespo, 2017b), neuroscience (González-Alvarez & Cervera-Crespo, 2017a), and other scientific fields (Larivière et al, 2013), suggesting that age probably also plays a role in the PAID journal.…”

Section: Pattern Of Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In overall science, Larivière et al (2013) found that articles with women in dominant author positions (first or last) received fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. We tested this issue in our sample of articles published in PAID from…”

Section: Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite significant progress in recent years, bibliometric analyses of the worldwide research production show that gender imbalances persist, and women are still underrepresented in most scientific fields (less than 30% of authorships worldwide; see Larivière, Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto 2013;West, Jacquet, King, Correll, & Bergstrom, 2013). Bibliometric studies in psychology are abundant, but gender analyses are scarce and not recent enough (Boice, Shaughnessy, & Pecker, 1985;Guyer & Fidell 1973), or limited to a specific geographical area, such as Australia (Malouff, Schutte, & Priest, 2010), Italy (D'Amico, Vermigli, & Canetto, 2011), or Spain (Barrios, Villarroya, & Borrego, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) contributors: An analysis of recent years (2008–2016)

González-Álvarez

2017

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to identify the gender of researchers who published in Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) during the 2008-2016 period. Of a total of 12,137 authorships, gender could be identified in 11,023 (90.8%). Results show a slight gender imbalance in favor of men that tends to diminish throughout the years, almost reaching parity in the last three years. Data show that: a) gender asymmetry is greater in the number of authorships than in the number of authors (individuals), partly because men tend to publish in a wider range of years during the period studied; b) men are relatively overrepresented in the last (senior) position of the author by-line; and c) in relative terms, women tend to be concentrated in the last years of the period studied. Taken together, these three points suggest that age probably plays a role in the (slight) gender imbalance, as observed in other scientific fields. Regarding the scientific impact of contributors, no gender differences were found in the number of citations received.

show abstract

Section: Pattern Of Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) contributors: An analysis of recent years (2008–2016)

González-Álvarez

2017

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies showed that abstracts with female senior authors are more poorly reviewed than abstracts with male senior authors, the so called "Matilda Effect", 20 and receive fewer citations. 21 Likewise, early career researchers may feel inhibited to perform a judicious review, not challenging senior researchers. 22 Yet, studies showed that journal editors have considered the reviews from early career researchers superior to those from senior researchers, perhaps as they put in more time and effort.…”

Section: Critical Appraisal Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where can early career researchers learn how to peer review a scientific paper?

2018

ESE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewers should be experts in a particular field, have the necessary experience and knowledge to evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate, the results accurate, the interpretations reasonable, and the references relevant; 2 whilst being capable of highlighting omissions and suggesting changes to improve readability. 3 Reviewers are expected to alert the editor to any problems they identify, and make recommendations if a paper should be accepted, returned to the authors for revisions or rejected.Finding reviewers is difficult for two-thirds of editors, 4 a situation exacerbated by the increasing number of scientific papers published. 5 Yet, as many as two-thirds of researchers who never peer reviewed would like to. 4 They are motivated to play a part in the academic community, return the assistance and improve the scientific literature. 4 Despite the importance for early career researchers to learn how to peer review, there is a huge lack of such formal training. 6 Several undergraduate and postgraduate programmes do not explicitly teach or provide training on how to review papers. Most early career researchers are left to learn it under the guidance of their supervisors or colleagues, through journal club discussions or simply through trial and error attempts. 7 Studies reported that over half of the reviewers learnt to review once they started to publish papers, by reading the reviews they received of their own submitted manuscripts, while others learnt 'on the job' once writing reviews, 8 or by checking the guidelines that some journals have. 4 Nevertheless, a study found that two-thirds of researchers claim for formal training on peer review. 7 In this article, we identify and describe the different formats of resources available for researchers to learn how to peer review. MethodsWe conducted a web-based search in English using Google, looking for resources that teach how to peer review. In addition, we contacted a purposive sample of twenty authors that published with the terms "peer review" or "early career researchers", enquiring about the resources they were acquainted with and their experience with them.We used a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) framework to analyze the resources directly focused on practical and structured teaching peer review, Abstract Background: The ability to peer review a scientific paper is an important skill for researchers, but many early career researchers do not obtain relevant training. In this article, we aimed to identify and describe the different resources available for researchers to learn how to peer review.Methods: We conducted a web-based search, looking for resources that teach how to peer review. In addition, we contacted authors who published with the terms "peer review" or "early career researchers", enquiring about the resources they were acquainted with. We used a SWOT framework to analyse the resources with a direct focus on practical teaching of peer review and widespread availability.Results: We found seven formats of resources...

show abstract

“…anne.hosmalin@inserm.fr la société ? Chercher des solutions, comme nous le faisons dans les sessions dédiées à la question ou comme le font régulièrement les meilleures revues scientifiques comme Nature, par exemple [10] ? Participons à des rassemblements pour réfléchir sur la question, comme les colloques de l'Association Femmes et Science ou la session que nous avons instaurée, sous ma présidence, au congrès annuel de la Société française d'immunologie, à l'instar de celle créée aux congrès européens d'immunologie par Catherine Fridman.…”

unclassified

Chercheuses dans le monde de la recherche biomédicale

Hosmalin

2017

Med Sci (Paris)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Éditorial> Malgré l'entrée massive des femmes dans le monde du travail, leur accession aux postes les plus élevés est loin d'atteindre la parité [1]. Le fameux « plafond de verre », terme inventé par les féministes américaines dans les années 1970 et repris par Marilyn Loden 1 lors d'une conférence sur les femmes au travail il y a déjà presque quarante ans, illustre ces « barrières invisibles » qui empêchent encore aujourd'hui les femmes d'accéder aux postes de responsabilité, avec pour conséquences de moindres rémunérations et une moindre reconnaissance sociale. Les causes socio-culturelles, pourtant depuis longtemps mises à jour, restent, encore aujourd'hui et à des degrés divers, profondément ancrées dans le monde [2]. La Journée internationale des femmes et des filles en science, qui s'est tenue le 11 février dernier (Unesco), a montré que des stéréotypes, formulés de façon consciente ou inconsciente par leur entourage et par la société, détournent les femmes des carrières scientifiques, Toutefois, si les établissements publics à caractère scientifique et technologique (EPST) ont fait une large part aux femmes, avec une proportion de chercheuses supérieure à 40 % et à près de 70 % chez les ingénieures et techniciennes, il n'en reste pas moins que l'évolution des carrières féminines ne suit pas les mêmes courbes que celles des hommes et n'atteint pas, souvent, les postes de direction [4,5]. Tout se passe comme s'il existait une discrimination permanente tout au long de leur carrière, qui provient de facteurs multiples que les mouvements féministes ont mis à jour et contre lesquels ils tentent de lutter. Cette discrimination s'exprime d'une façon inégale selon les disciplines et les statuts, comme le montrent les derniers bilans sociaux de l'Inserm [4]

show abstract

Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science

Abstract: Cassidy R. Sugimoto and colleagues present a bibliometric analysis confirming that gender imbalances persist in research output worldwide.

Cited by 1,088 publications

References 9 publications

Gender of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) contributors: An analysis of recent years (2008–2016)

Gender of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) contributors: An analysis of recent years (2008–2016)

Where can early career researchers learn how to peer review a scientific paper?

Chercheuses dans le monde de la recherche biomédicale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About