Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country

Chan, Ho Fai; Torgler, Benno

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w

Cited by 53 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After screening for titles and abstracts, we assessed 115 full texts for eligibility. Fifty-four articles [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ] were then excluded because of different reasons such as a mismatch with inclusion criteria and unavailability of the full text (see Figure 1 and ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Fichera

Busch

Rimondini

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Fichera

Busch

Rimondini

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Field comparisons. To explore differences across fields with respect to opinions about immunity certificates, we follow 38 in classifying fields into five groups: Natural Sciences (n = 1710), Applied Sciences (n = 829), Economic & Social Sciences (n = 4901), Health Sciences (n = 4851), and Arts & Humanities (n = 295). The distributional differences across fields are reported in the Supplementary Information (see Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, a recent study also indicates that women are more likely to perceive COVID-19 as a very serious health issue and more likely to favor using restrictive public policy measures, a difference that is considerable in all eight OECD countries explored 41 . Controlling for academic rank, younger scholars (age group 18-29) tend to be more supportive of immunity certificates in terms of their benefit for public health (OR 1.24, p = 0.026) and the economy (OR 1.31, p = 0.009) compared to the baseline age group [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] , while scientists above 40 showed less agreement regarding the economic benefit (p < 0.001 for all age groups above 40). Scientists in the age group > 50 demonstrated substantially more support for immunity passports with respect to fairness and inequality (relative to the age group 30-39, p < 0.001 for all age groups above 50).…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientists have favorable opinions on immunity certificates but raise concerns regarding fairness and inequality

Aranzales

Chan

Eichenberger

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected over 12,000 responses from a survey of scientists, who were asked to express their opinions on immunity certificates (also called “immunity passports”) as a potential instrument to lessen the impact of the crisis. Overall, we find that scientists perceive immunity certificates as favorable for public health (50.2%) and the state of the economy (54.4%) while one-fifth (19.1%) and one-sixth (15.4%) disagree. Scientists stipulate some concerns about fairness (36.5%) and inequality (22.4%) arising from implementation of immunity certification. We find some smaller differences among scientific fields, particularly between health scientists and social scientists, with the latter being slightly more positive about the effect of immunity certification. Scholars in the United States, including health scientists, are more likely to view the immunity certificates favorably and mention fewer concerns about this policy’s effect on fairness and inequality. Female scholars are significantly less in favor of immunity certificates, while scientists with more conservative political views hold more favorable opinions. Our results reveal that given the uncertainties during an early phase of a pandemic, scientists see scope for immunity certification to lessen the general societal impacts of the crisis.

show abstract

“…Improving our understanding and addressing the causes of gender disparities in awards is crucial to bring often-biased behaviors and decisions in line with values of equality and fairness (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). Ensuring the full participation and recognition of the highestquality award candidates (men and women in high, middle, and low-income countries) guarantees improvement in research and innovation that ultimately improve societies (Andersen et al, 2019;Chan & Torgler, 2020;Cheryan et al, 2017;Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018;Huang et al, 2020;Nielsen, 2017).…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Meho

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. The study finds that: (1) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (2) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001-2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016-2020; (3) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016-2020; and (4) when the numbers of women full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. The study concludes that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00148

show abstract

Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country

Cited by 53 publications

References 125 publications

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Scientists have favorable opinions on immunity certificates but raise concerns regarding fairness and inequality

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About