This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of “elite” by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper’s approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.

For researchers in the global South, international recognition in science arguably involves engaging with the norms, ideas, and people leading research activity in the global North. This article explores the relationship between international research collaboration and the publication activity of highly cited researchers in Brazil, a country that exerts regional leadership in scientific production in Latin America, but remains relatively peripheral to global science. This study examined the career trajectories and publication patterns of highly cited researchers based in Brazilian universities, using Web of Science and CV data. Our findings show a pattern of international mobility among the Brazilian highly cited researchers from the early stages of their careers. With few exceptions, engagement with the academic Anglosphere is central to their achievement of highly cited status, which is derived from co-authored publications with collaborators from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia in large teams.

Academic research and policy thinking on international research collaboration across the globe have relied on the categories "North" and "South," alternatively described as "Global North" and "Global South." Over time, these have become more commonplace than the "developed/developing" dichotomy or the Cold War-inspired nomenclature of "First," "Second," and "Third" Worlds (Wolvers et al., 2015). However, the assumptions and ideologies underpinning these categories are rarely made explicit. In practice, they are often based on the understanding that countries in the "North" can enhance research quality and impacts of the "South," whereas those in the "South" are either trying to catch up or are merely recipients. In addition to oversimplifying world geography, these categories are vague and incomplete. They fail to distinctly position several countries that do not directly align within the "North" or the "South" in socioeconomic and political terms. Their use overemphasizes national contexts while obscuring the specific capabilities and constraints of those engaged in research partnerships. For one, increased academic mobility means that the people who are involved in these collaborations have experiences and backgrounds from a range of settings that may span both "North" and "South." Moreover, researchers' socialization into disciplinary communities, through which they develop specific intellectual outlooks and orientations, is not necessarily bound by national borders. Some argue that, as "the geographical location of researchers becomes more and more irrelevant," terms such as "North" and "South" are blurred

No abstract

No abstract