Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology

Abstract

Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts–especially by male senior authors–are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.

Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM

“…While our study cannot confer causality leading to diminished productivity, the results show that unprofessional reviews reinforce bias that is already being encountered by underrepresented groups on a daily basis. Other well-studied mechanisms leading to reduced productivity for women include (but are not limited to) papers by women authors spend more time in review than papers by men (Hengel, 2017), men are significantly less likely to publish coauthored papers with women than with other men (Salerno et al, 2019), women receive less research funding than men in some countries (Witteman et al, 2019) and women spend more time doing service work than men at academic institutions (Guarino & Borden, 2017). Women are also underrepresented in the peer review process leading to substantial biases in peer review (Goldberg, 1968; Kaatz, Gutierrez & Carnes, 2014).…”

Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals

“…Further, male researchers tend to prefer publishing with other men ( Salerno et al, 2019 ) and tend to mentor more men as well ( Moss-Racusin et al, 2012 ; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ). Most review invitations are made by men to other men, and papers with male leaders have higher acceptance rates ( Fox and Paine, 2019 ).…”

“…The gender gap persists owing to different stereotypes about women characteristics and abilities, deeper parenting responsibilities, as well as the resulting ‘pipeline problem’, i.e. the rarity of women with appropriate education and skills ( Carli and Eagly, 2001 ; Greider et al, 2019 ; Moss-Racusin et al, 2012 ; Salerno et al, 2019 ; Schein, 2001 ; Setzler, 2018 ; World Economic Forum, 2019 ).…”

Peer Review #1 of "Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM (v0.1)"

“…While our study cannot confer causality leading to diminished productivity, the results show that unprofessional reviews reinforce bias that is already being encountered by underrepresented groups on a daily basis. Other well-studied mechanisms leading to reduced productivity for women include (but are not limited to) papers by women authors spend more time in review than papers by men (Hengel 2017), men are significantly less likely to publish co-authored papers with women than with other men (Salerno et al 2019), women receive less research funding than men in some countries (Witteman et al 2019), and women spend more time doing service work than men at academic institutions (Guarino and Borden 2017). Women are also underrepresented in the peer review process leading to substantial biases in peer review (Goldberg 1968;Kaatz, Gutierrez, and Carnes 2014).…”