Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers

Kim, Lanu; Smith, Daniel Scott; Hofstra, Bas; McFarland, Daniel A.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 35 Kim et al discuss how women who research women’s health topics are doubly disadvantaged by their own gender and by their machine-learning documented gender-associated research. 23 Thus, threats to career progress/promotion from publishing delays, and low women’s health research representation in publication, have fundamental implications for equity in medicine and science. Women’s health-focussed researchers commonly report repeated manuscript rejections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One author of one of the focal articles reported nearly being rejected for tenure because a unique manuscript, reporting randomised controlled trial results that were both novel and of practical impact, was rejected six times over 3 years 35. Kim et al discuss how women who research women’s health topics are doubly disadvantaged by their own gender and by their machine-learning documented gender-associated research 23. Thus, threats to career progress/promotion from publishing delays, and low women’s health research representation in publication, have fundamental implications for equity in medicine and science.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 While gender-referenced research and gender-associated research by women are encouraged, implicit bias in addition to existing structural and societal biases do not favour women whose research topics are focused on women’s health, with women participants. 23 Authorship of publications allows women to share and promote their research. Most importantly, high-impact journal publication determines newsworthiness and, without this, translation is impeded from research into knowledge and hence into healthcare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Women’s first-authored publications are less cited,21 despite being more likely to include the ideal, now recommended, sex/gender analysis 22. While gender-referenced research and gender-associated research by women are encouraged, implicit bias in addition to existing structural and societal biases do not favour women whose research topics are focused on women’s health, with women participants 23. Authorship of publications allows women to share and promote their research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women’s physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women’s reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment.DesignA prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women’s reproductive physiology results.SettingTertiary academic medical centre.Main outcome measuresAll clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status.ResultsWomen were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women’s health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors.ConclusionSex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women’s health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study builds on, but also extends, a small but growing stream of research in the Science of Science on gender and language (c.f., (Fortunato et al, 2018)). First, while existing literature has identified a number of differences in men's and women's scientific writing (Lerchenmueller et al, 2019;Kolev et al, 2020;Kim et al, 2022), the choice of features have not been motivated by a linguistic framework, thereby complicating the interpretation of the results and making comparisons across studies difficult. Second, existing research has been done within particular fields and on particular kinds of text (e.g., scientific papers), and therefore little is known about whether the patterns observed thus far will generalize across diverse fields and document types (such as patent data), which have diverse norms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating writing style as a contributor to gender gaps in science and technology

Levitskaya¹,

Kedrick²,

Funk³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While universalism is a foundational principle of science, a growing stream of research finds that scientific contributions are evaluated differently depending on the gender of the author, with women tending to receive fewer citations relative to men, even for work of comparable quality. Strikingly, research also suggests that these gender gaps are visible even under blinded review, wherein the evaluator is not aware of the gender of the author. In this article, we consider whether gender differences in writing styles-how men and women communicate their work-may contribute to these observed gender gaps. We ground our investigation in a previously established framework for characterizing the linguistic style of written text, which distinguishes between two sets of features-informational (i.e., features that emphasize facts) and involved (i.e., features that emphasize relationships). Using a large, matched sample of academic papers and patents, we find significant differences in writing style by gender; women use more involved features in their writing, a pattern that holds universally across fields. The magnitude of the effect varies across fields, with larger gender differences observed in the social sciences and arts humanities and smaller gaps in the physical sciences and technology. Subsequently, we show that gender differences in writing style may have parallels in reading preferences; papers and patents with more informational features tend to be cited more by men, while those with more involved features tend to be cited more by women, even after controlling for the gender of the author, inventor, and patent attorney. Our findings suggest that formal written text is not devoid of personal character, which could contribute to bias in evaluation, thereby compromising the norm of universalism.

show abstract

The Knowledge Creation Capability of Female Scientists is Neck and Neck with Male Scientists

Zheng,

Hou

2024

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on knowledge creation capability in the Science of Science, this paper aims to determine scientists' knowledge creation capability (KCC) and figure out whether there is any gender gap in that. We construct a career matrix to compute KCC of scientists in Economics, Astronomy, and Computer Science each year, from the perspective of knowledge source and diffusion. We find that male scientists' KCC is not significantly different from that of female scientists, and the two groups of scientists have the same KCC distribution. In the first 10 years of their academic careers, female scientists have higher KCC than male scientists but have lower KCC in the 15 to 40 years. After controlling a series of confounders, it's found that female scientists have higher KCC than male scientists, even though there is not much of a difference in KCC. The results remain the same after we perform a robustness check.

show abstract

Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers

Cited by 35 publications

References 71 publications

Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology

Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology

Investigating writing style as a contributor to gender gaps in science and technology

The Knowledge Creation Capability of Female Scientists is Neck and Neck with Male Scientists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About