Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science

Azoulay, Pierre; Lynn, Freda B.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3563961

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Men still predominate in the prestigious first-and last-author positions of the byline, and women tend to publish fewer single-authored, first-authored, and last-authored articles than men (Sugimoto, Lariviere, Ni, Gingras, & Cronin, 2013;West, Jacquet, King, Correll, & Bergstrom, 2013). It also appears that women tend to self-cite less than men (Nielsen, 2016b;King, Bergstrom, Correll, Jacquet, & West, 2017), which is a piece of evidence recently challenged by Azoulay and Lynn (2020). Further, when it comes to intellectual property, it has been shown that women patent at approximately 40% of the rate of men (Ding, Murray, & Stuart, 2006).…”

Section: The Gender Gap In Research Performance and Its Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway

Abramo

Aksnes

D’Angelo

2021

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the scientific performance of Italian and Norwegian university professors is analysed using bibliometric indicators. The study is based on over 36,000 individuals and their publication output during the period 2011-2015. Applying a multidimensional indicator in which several aspects of the research performance are captured, we find large differences in the performance of men and women. These gender differences are evident across all analysed levels, such as country, field, and academic position. However, most of the gender differences can be explained by the tails of the distributions-in particular, there is a much higher proportion of men among the top 10% performing scientists. For the remaining 90% of the population, the gender differences are practically non-existent. The results of the two countries, which differ in terms of the societal role of women, are contrasting. Further, we discuss possible biases that are intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators, which might disfavour female researchers.

show abstract

Section: The Gender Gap In Research Performance and Its Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway

Abramo

Aksnes

D’Angelo

2021

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research suggested the extent to which women promote their research accomplishments relative to men as one of the mechanisms that might contribute to current gender gaps in academic medicine [3]. However, it should also be considered that as the promotion of research findings for women might be considered counter stereotypical behaviour [10,75], women might be criticised for this behaviour, even sometimes by other women [4,11]. Thus, it might be the case that implicit gender biases negatively act against women in the way that their research findings are perceived by both men and women.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the notion of 'excellence' within audit cultures in academia implicitly reflects images of masculinity [8], the promotion of women's research findings could be considered counter stereotypical behaviour, which may in turn cause a backlash against women [9][10][11]. Men's research can be viewed as more central or important in a field (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in citation sentiment: A case study in life sciences and biomedicine

Dehdarirad

Yaghtin

2022

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigated whether female and male authors in the field of life sciences and biomedicine differed in their tendency for citation and citation sentiment. The data comprised two sets, cited set and citing set. Cited set comprised 17,237 articles whereas citing set comprised 115,935 articles. The cited set which is from the area Life Sciences & Biomedicine and published during 2012–2016 was retrieved from the Web of Science Medline. The citing set and its citation contexts were retrieved using the Colil database. The analysis was done using a combination of homophily analysis, regression analysis and a chi-square test. The covariates in the regression analyses were features related to authors, journal, institution, country and abstract readability. The homophily analysis showed a significant tendency for female (8%) and male (14%) authorship teams to cite papers by the same gender composition teams. In addition, the results of regression analysis (Model 1) and pairwise comparisons showed that male-authored papers received a significant higher positive sentiment compared with female-authored papers. The results of regression analysis (Model 2) showed a small significant positive association between gender similarity of cited and citing authorship teams and the sentiment score. However, further analysis using the chi-square test showed a significant lower tendency for women to use positive terms when citing the research findings of papers with the same gender composition. Men, in contrast, used significantly more positive terms when citing papers with the same gender composition. Finally, lay summary for a cited paper, country similarity and the venue of cited publication when it was a mega journal had a positive significant association with the sentiment score received.

show abstract

“…It is thus of little surprise that women are less likely than men to self-promote on online hiring platforms 44 and that female entrepreneurs' pitches are favored less by investors 45,46 . In the scientific domain, men have been found to be more likely than women to cite their papers [47][48][49] and present their research as novel and essential 50 . These findings suggest that female scientists may also be more conservative in the statement of their accomplishments than males in online self-promotion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

Peng

Teplitskiy

Horvát³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but not exercised to the same extent by everyone. It is unclear whether there are gender differences in the frequency of self-promotion or the benefits individuals get from it. Here, we examine gender differences in scholarly self-promotion using 7M Tweet mentions of 539K research papers published in 2018 by 1.3M authors. Our analysis shows that female authors are significantly less likely than male authors to promote their papers, even after controlling for a number of important factors including journal impact, affiliation prestige, author productivity and number of citations, authorship position, number of coauthors, and research topics. The magnitude of the gender gap is more strongly associated with papers' journal impact factor than authors' affiliation prestige, previous productivity, or academic discipline. In particular, male scholars are 60\% more likely than comparable female scholars to self-promote papers published in journals with very high impact factor, whereas the difference is only 28\% for papers in low impact journals. Although women self-promote less often overall, when they do, their papers receive slightly more mentions on Twitter. Our findings offer the first large-scale evidence for a gender gap in scholarly self-promotion online and show the circumstances under which the gap is most substantial, helping inform policy aimed at mitigating discrepancies in visibility and recognition.

show abstract

Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway

Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway

Gender differences in citation sentiment: A case study in life sciences and biomedicine

The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About