Scientific production of women in Brazil

Abstract

Researchers concentrate their efforts to understand the different female relations with science, using approaches that review their scientific and technological participation, as well as, seeking to understand their academic trajectory and performance. In this context, this study aimed to analyze the participation of women using as database the set of PhD graduates who have their curricula entered in the Lattes Platform. The data were collected and selected obtaining a set of 125,515 curricula of women who had completed their PhD. The PhD data were grouped according to the large areas of expertise (fields of science) and academic training, in which it was possible to analyze the academic evolution and the scientific and technological production of the group in a temporal manner. The different types of studies that help to understand the general aspect of women active mainly in science, besides being relevant, exhibit the characteristics of their research. This may be useful for the generation of national scientific indicators, for the management of information in the scientific area and for technological development. It is also useful to encourage and valuate participation of women in science.

The 100,000 most influential scientists rank: the underrepresentation of Brazilian women in academia

“…On the other hand, the impact of Brazilian research is lower for Social and Human Sciences (McManus et al 2020), which is confirmed by the low representation of Brazilians for these fields in the Ioannidis et al (2020) ranks. A recent analysis by Santiago et al (2020) showed significant disparities in the number of women holding a Ph.D. between areas in Brazil, with a predominance in the Humanities (19.8% of women Ph.D.), and a very small presence in Engineering (4.3%). In contrast, the number of female Brazilian scientists present in the ranks analyzed here does not reflect this pattern, since the lowest representation observed was in the Economic & Social Science and Arts & Humanities domains.…”

Women in literary production: A bibliometric analysis in the books of the Coron ado Collection

“…La vinculación de estos estudios con la bibliometría, comenzó por el interés de conocer cuál era el rol de la mujer dentro de la ciencia; las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres en la producción científica; su desarrollo y evolución a través del tiempo y sus diferencias en cuanto a nacionalidades (Sánchez Jasso, Rivera Gómez, & Velasco Orozco, 2016). Se encontraron investigaciones donde se refleja la presencia femenina en la investigación dentro de ramas específicas del conocimiento (Santiago, Alfonso, & Días, 2020) o para marcar la diferencia entre ambos géneros en aspectos como la productividad (Sebo, de Lucía, & Vernaz, 2021), el impacto y el índice de citas (Chan & Torgler, 2020) y la colaboración entre investigadores en una institución, país, campo de investigación o colección documental (Paswan & Singh, 2020).…”

DP 0268 - The Platformization of Science: Lattes Platform at a Crossroads?

“…With the development of extractors, it was possible to use Lattes Database to draw a bigger picture of the Brazilian Innovation System. Examples are snapshots of the scientific production (Dias and Moita, 2018), scientific regional distribution (Sidone, Haddad and Mena-Chalco, 2016;, knowledge field particularities (Arruda et al, 2009;Hilário and Grácio, 2017;McManus and Neves, 2020), scientific collaboration and coauthorship networks (Fonseca, Fernandes and Fonseca, 2017;Mena-Chalco et al, 2014), gender inequality in scientific areas (Oliveira, Mello and Rigolin, 2020;Perlin et al, 2017;Santiago, Affonso and Dias, 2020), academic genealogy studies (Damaceno et al, and Mena-Chalco, 2018), and other scientometric and network analysis such as the research output in response to the Zika Crisis (Sampaio et al, 2020) and tuberculosis , development of methods to assess researcher quality-oriented to specific purposes (Duarte, Weber and Pacheco, 2018), trust analysis in cooperation in research (Adamatti and Castelfranchi, 2015) and predatory publishing (Perlin, Imasato and Borenstein, 2018).…”