• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

化学科学学术交流中存在性别差异吗？

Is there a gender gap in chemical sciences scholarly communication?

作者信息

Day A E, Corbett P, Boyle J

机构信息

Royal Society of Chemistry , Thomas Graham House (290), Science Park, Milton Road , Cambridge , CB4 0WF , UK . Email:

出版信息

Chem Sci. 2020 Jan 28;11(8):2277-2301. doi: 10.1039/c9sc04090k. eCollection 2020 Feb 28.

DOI:10.1039/c9sc04090k
PMID:32180933
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7057853/
Abstract

The Royal Society of Chemistry is committed to investigating and addressing the barriers and biases which face women in the chemical sciences. The cornerstone of this is a thorough analysis of data regarding submissions, review and citations for Royal Society of Chemistry journals from January 2014 until July 2018, since the number and impact of publications and citations are an important factor when seeking research funding and for the progression of academic career. We have applied standard statistical techniques to multiple data sources to perform this analysis, and have investigated whether interactions between variables are significant in affecting various outcomes (author gender; reviewer gender; reviewer recommendations and submission outcome) in addition to considering variables individually. By considering several different data sources, we found that a baseline of approximately a third of chemistry researchers are female overall, although this differs considerably with Chemistry sub-discipline. Rather than one dominant bias effect, we observe complex interactions and a gradual trickle-down decrease in this female percentage through the publishing process and each of these female percentages is less than the last: authors of submissions; authors of RSC submissions which are not rejected without peer review; authors of accepted RSC publications; authors of cited articles. The success rate for female authors to progress through each of these publishing stages is lower than that for male authors. There is a decreasing female percentage when progressing through from first authors to corresponding authors to reviewers, reflecting the decreasing female percentage with seniority in Chemistry research observed in the "Diversity landscape of the chemical sciences" report. Highlights and actions from this analysis form the basis of an accompanying report to be released from the Royal Society of Chemistry.

摘要

英国皇家化学学会致力于调查和解决化学科学领域女性所面临的障碍和偏见。其核心是对2014年1月至2018年7月期间英国皇家化学学会期刊的投稿、评审和引用数据进行全面分析，因为出版物数量和影响力以及引用情况是申请研究经费和学术职业发展的重要因素。我们运用标准统计技术对多个数据源进行了此项分析，除了单独考虑变量外，还研究了变量之间的相互作用对各种结果（作者性别、评审员性别、评审员建议和投稿结果）的影响是否显著。通过考虑多个不同的数据源，我们发现总体上约三分之一的化学研究人员为女性，不过这在化学子学科中差异很大。我们观察到的并非单一的主导偏见效应，而是复杂的相互作用，并且在整个出版过程中女性比例逐渐递减，每个阶段的女性比例都低于上一个阶段：投稿作者、未经过同行评审就未被拒稿的英国皇家化学学会投稿作者、被接受的英国皇家化学学会出版物作者、被引用文章的作者。女性作者在每个出版阶段取得进展的成功率低于男性作者。从第一作者到通讯作者再到评审员，女性比例逐渐降低，这反映了《化学科学的多样性格局》报告中所观察到的化学研究领域中女性比例随资历降低的情况。此次分析的重点和行动构成了英国皇家化学学会即将发布的一份配套报告的基础。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/93760c084ec3/c9sc04090k-f32.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/bab29efb5dac/c9sc04090k-f9.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/c61ff77c94d1/c9sc04090k-f10.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/7134936b3a8f/c9sc04090k-f11.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/b1e3cce9baa4/c9sc04090k-f12.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/b4efb04fa90b/c9sc04090k-f13.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5be10c2ed495/c9sc04090k-f14.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/307a351b24df/c9sc04090k-f15.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/49b48d03f0d8/c9sc04090k-f16.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/e1d5260bccf7/c9sc04090k-f17.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/98db8ac5b339/c9sc04090k-f18.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/25ccf8cf638c/c9sc04090k-f19.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/58fd7ee4166e/c9sc04090k-f20.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5fb01ac79844/c9sc04090k-f21.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/f72a778ea1f0/c9sc04090k-f22.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/777744248bab/c9sc04090k-f23.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/0c694d541d90/c9sc04090k-f24.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/7af04ccf96b5/c9sc04090k-f25.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/1833fa335bd2/c9sc04090k-f26.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5d20f85401f3/c9sc04090k-f27.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/f53d73ff0ab2/c9sc04090k-f28.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/6f5c2f98b3f6/c9sc04090k-f29.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/462ede3d5669/c9sc04090k-f30.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/4f10bd2a7537/c9sc04090k-f31.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/93760c084ec3/c9sc04090k-f32.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/bab29efb5dac/c9sc04090k-f9.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/c61ff77c94d1/c9sc04090k-f10.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/7134936b3a8f/c9sc04090k-f11.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/b1e3cce9baa4/c9sc04090k-f12.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/b4efb04fa90b/c9sc04090k-f13.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5be10c2ed495/c9sc04090k-f14.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/307a351b24df/c9sc04090k-f15.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/49b48d03f0d8/c9sc04090k-f16.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/e1d5260bccf7/c9sc04090k-f17.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/98db8ac5b339/c9sc04090k-f18.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/25ccf8cf638c/c9sc04090k-f19.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/58fd7ee4166e/c9sc04090k-f20.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5fb01ac79844/c9sc04090k-f21.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/f72a778ea1f0/c9sc04090k-f22.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/777744248bab/c9sc04090k-f23.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/0c694d541d90/c9sc04090k-f24.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/7af04ccf96b5/c9sc04090k-f25.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/1833fa335bd2/c9sc04090k-f26.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/5d20f85401f3/c9sc04090k-f27.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/f53d73ff0ab2/c9sc04090k-f28.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/6f5c2f98b3f6/c9sc04090k-f29.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/462ede3d5669/c9sc04090k-f30.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/4f10bd2a7537/c9sc04090k-f31.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7caa/7057853/93760c084ec3/c9sc04090k-f32.jpg

相似文献

1
Is there a gender gap in chemical sciences scholarly communication?化学科学学术交流中存在性别差异吗？
Chem Sci. 2020 Jan 28;11(8):2277-2301. doi: 10.1039/c9sc04090k. eCollection 2020 Feb 28.
2
Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.期刊中热门话题的影响因素及预测
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Aug;37(4):343-5. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-111209. Epub 2016 Aug 4.
3
Assessment of Women Physicians Among Authors of Perspective-Type Articles Published in High-Impact Pediatric Journals.评估高影响力儿科期刊中观点类文章作者中的女性医师。
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Jul 6;1(3):e180802. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0802.
4
Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.被《美国皮肤科学会杂志》拒稿的稿件的去向
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Apr;58(4):632-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025. Epub 2008 Feb 4.
5
The influence of first author sex on acceptance rates of submissions to Anaesthesia Cases.第一作者性别对麻醉病例投稿接受率的影响。
Anaesthesia. 2019 Nov;74(11):1432-1438. doi: 10.1111/anae.14797. Epub 2019 Aug 2.
6
Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research.作者性别与外科研究中的性别偏见的关联。
JAMA Surg. 2018 Jul 1;153(7):663-670. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0040.
7
Highly cited articles in health care sciences and services field in Science Citation Index Expanded. A bibliometric analysis for 1958 - 2012.《科学引文索引扩展版》中医疗保健科学与服务领域的高被引文章。1958 - 2012年的文献计量分析
Methods Inf Med. 2014;53(6):446-58. doi: 10.3414/ME14-01-0022. Epub 2014 Oct 10.
8
Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.作者推荐的审稿人与编辑选择的审稿人一样优秀吗？一项评分者盲法回顾性研究的结果。
BMC Med. 2006 May 30;4:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.
9
The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.《儿科学杂志》2015-2016 年发表文章中的性别角色：同等评价，不均机会。
J Pediatr. 2018 Sep;200:254-260.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.06.059. Epub 2018 Jul 17.
10
Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.作者和审稿人的个人特质、社会偏见与同行评审结果：一项案例研究
F1000Res. 2015 Jan 22;4:21. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6012.2. eCollection 2015.

引用本文的文献

1
Gender Differences in Citation Rate: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology High-Impact Journals Over Two Decades.引用率的性别差异：对二十多年来肾脏病学高影响力期刊中随机对照试验的分析
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2024 Nov 1;19(11):1453-1460. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000511. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
2
Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors.学术编辑主导的选择性期刊编辑活动中的性别失衡。
PLoS One. 2023 Dec 11;18(12):e0294805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294805. eCollection 2023.
3
Implementation of a novel peer review academy by Surgery and the Association of Women Surgeons.

本文引用的文献

1
Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences.研究人员在整个生命科学领域与同性别的同事合作的频率比预期的要高。
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 26;14(4):e0216128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216128. eCollection 2019.
2
Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.在 NIH R01 资助提案初始评审的实验中，几乎没有种族或性别偏见。
Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):257-264. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
3
Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators.
外科与女外科医生协会实施了一个新型同行评审学院。
Surgery. 2024 Feb;175(2):323-330. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.050. Epub 2023 Nov 10.
4
A large 'discovery' experiment: Gender Initiative for Excellence (Genie) at Chalmers University of Technology.一项大型“探索性”实验：查尔姆斯理工大学的卓越性别倡议（Genie）。
QRB Discov. 2021 Jun 22;2:e5. doi: 10.1017/qrd.2021.3. eCollection 2021.
5
The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity within academia.新冠疫情对学术界研究生产力性别差距的影响。
Elife. 2023 Jul 6;12:e85427. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85427.
6
Not yet defect-free: the current landscape for women in computational materials research.仍非毫无缺陷：计算材料研究领域中女性的现状。
NPJ Comput Mater. 2023;9(1):98. doi: 10.1038/s41524-023-01054-z. Epub 2023 Jun 3.
7
Introducing the SURGERY Peer Review Academies.介绍外科同行评审学院。
Surgery. 2023 May;173(5):1111-1112. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.03.010.
8
Discipline-Based Diversity Research in Chemistry.化学学科中的多样性研究
Acc Chem Res. 2023 Apr 4;56(7):787-797. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00797. Epub 2023 Jan 27.
9
Dismantling barriers faced by women in STEM.消除女性在科学、技术、工程和数学领域所面临的障碍。
Nat Chem. 2022 Nov;14(11):1203-1206. doi: 10.1038/s41557-022-01072-2.
10
Refining a DEI Assessment Tool for Use in Optimizing Professional STEM Societies for Gender Equity.完善用于优化专业STEM学会性别平等的多元化、公平与包容评估工具。
Front Sociol. 2022 Jun 14;7:755372. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.755372. eCollection 2022.
美国国立卫生研究院授予首次担任主要研究者的男性和女性的资助金额比较。
JAMA. 2019 Mar 5;321(9):898-900. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.21944.
4
The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?科学界的性别差距：女性何时才能平等代表？
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 19;16(4):e2004956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956. eCollection 2018 Apr.
5
Gender bias in scholarly peer review.学术同行评审中的性别偏见。
Elife. 2017 Mar 21;6:e21718. doi: 10.7554/eLife.21718.
6
Journals invite too few women to referee.期刊邀请女性担任审稿人的人数过少。
Nature. 2017 Jan 25;541(7638):455-457. doi: 10.1038/541455a.
7
Nature's sexism.大自然的性别歧视。
Nature. 2012 Nov 22;491(7425):495.
8
The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?h指数研究现状。h指数是衡量研究绩效的理想方式吗？
EMBO Rep. 2009 Jan;10(1):2-6. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.233. Epub 2008 Dec 12.
9
Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.双盲评审有利于增加女性作者的代表性。
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. Epub 2007 Oct 25.
10
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.一个用于量化个人科研产出的指标。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. Epub 2005 Nov 7.