Are Papers Written by Women Authors Cited Less Frequently?

Esarey, Justin; Bryant, K. H.

doi:10.1017/pan.2018.24

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An important research area in scientometrics, for which Crossref metadata can be helpful, is citation analysis. Some interesting examples include the studies by Dion et al (2018) and Esarey and Bryant (2018). They used Crossref metadata to investigate the correlation between gender and citation levels and assess the citation gender gap.…”

Section: Data Source For Scientometricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Hendricks

Tkaczyk

Lin

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the scholarly metadata collected and made available by Crossref, as well as its importance in the scholarly research ecosystem. Containing over 106 million records and expanding at an average rate of 11% a year, Crossref’s metadata has become one of the major sources of scholarly data for publishers, authors, librarians, funders, and researchers. The metadata set consists of 13 content types, including not only traditional types, such as journals and conference papers, but also data sets, reports, preprints, peer reviews, and grants. The metadata is not limited to basic publication metadata, but can also include abstracts and links to full text, funding and license information, citation links, and the information about corrections, updates, retractions, etc. This scale and breadth make Crossref a valuable source for research in scientometrics, including measuring the growth and impact of science and understanding new trends in scholarly communications. The metadata is available through a number of APIs, including REST API and OAI-PMH. In this paper, we describe the kind of metadata that Crossref provides and how it is collected and curated. We also look at Crossref’s role in the research ecosystem and trends in metadata curation over the years, including the evolution of its citation data provision. We summarize the research used in Crossref’s metadata and describe plans that will improve metadata quality and retrieval in the future.

show abstract

Section: Data Source For Scientometricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Hendricks

Tkaczyk

Lin

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…El caso de Chile, destaca por ser el país con más publicaciones en relación al número de sus habitantes. Cabe señalar que factores como, por ejemplo, el número de autores participantes en un artículo, las redes de colaboración, las políticas y sistemas de ciencia e investigación de los diferentes centros influyen en que un investigador sea citado con mayor frecuencia que otros y, por lo tanto, verse reflejado en su productividad general (Esarey & Bryant, 2018;Farji-Brener, 2012).…”

Section: Figura 5dunclassified

Productividad científica de investigadores en ciencias marinas en América Latina

Moya

Rau

2022

Palabra clave

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta investigación analiza patrones de producción científica, citación y redes de colaboración bajo tres relaciones (investigador/investigador, investigador/centro e investigador/país) de los investigadores más productivos de cuatro centros de investigación marina (CIM) de América Latina durante un período de 20 años (2000-2020) desde una perspectiva bibliométrica. Se utilizó el motor de búsqueda Scopus para los respectivos análisis bibliométricos. En total se identificaron a 57 investigadores que fueron los más productivos entre los cuatro Centros; 5, 7, 14 y 31 para el Centro i~mar, IOUSP, IICYM y CICESE, respectivamente. En dos (i~mar e IICYM) de los cuatro centros, los investigadores (AB) y (OI) registraron el mayor número de publicaciones y fueron también los más citados, sin embargo, este patrón no se cumplió para los investigadores del IOUSP y CICESE. Se encontró que la red de colaboración entre investigadores más productivos está segmentada en ciertos grupos definidos, lo que provoca una falta de cooperación interna entre ellos, especialmente en el Centro i~mar e IOUSP. Además, se evidenció que los investigadores más productivos concentran sus colaboraciones con otros investigadores pertenecientes a universidades, instituciones o centros de su mismo país, y muy escasamente con centros internacionales siendo su cooperación internacional conservadora lo que a su vez demuestra autonomía científica y no requieren en estricto rigor colegas externos para visibilizar sus investigaciones. Esta investigación contribuye con el conocimiento de los centros más productivos y es la base de estudios futuros que sugiere orientar y extender los análisis en la productividad de investigadores con menos publicaciones y citas, así como en el análisis de su red interna de colaboración.

show abstract

“…Analysis of Twitter sharing patterns can also complement analysis of gendered citation patterns (Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell 2018). The fact that Twitter accounts are all "solo authored" affords analytical purchase on the extent to which co-authorship trends are driving observed gendered citation patterns (Esarey and Bryant 2018).…”

Section: Twitter and Academiamentioning

confidence: 99%

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019

Bisbee¹,

Larson²,

Munger³

2020

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge creation is a social enterprise, especially in political science. Sharing new findings widely and quickly is essential for progress. Scholars can now use Twitter to rapidly disseminate ideas, and many do. What are the implications of this new tool? Who uses it, how do they use it, and what are the implications for exacerbating or ameliorating existing inequalities in terms of research dissemination and attention? We construct a novel dataset of all 1,236 political science professors at PhD-granting institutions in the United States who have a Twitter account to answer these questions. We find that female scholars and those on the tenure track are more likely to use Twitter, especially for the dissemination of research. However, we consistently find that research by men shared on Twitter is more likely to be passed along further by men than research by women.

show abstract

Are Papers Written by Women Authors Cited Less Frequently?

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata

Productividad científica de investigadores en ciencias marinas en América Latina

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About