Suppr超能文献

美国、加拿大和南非顶尖科学家的研究产出和认可方面的性别差距。

Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa.

机构信息

Department of Leadership, Higher, and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 29;15(10):e0240903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240903. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of "elite" by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper's approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.

摘要

本研究以文献中记录的科学领域性别差距为基础,调查了三个国家的精英科学家的研究生产力和认可度。与以往的研究不同,这项分析既没有对不同组织环境和学术任命的研究人员进行一般性比较,也没有用研究成果变量来定义“精英”。相反,本文的方法通过仔细构建加拿大、美国和南非的研究主席职位的男性和女性匹配样本,以及一个部门同行的对照组,考虑了科学职业的分层。该分析基于一个独特的、手工整理的数据集,其中包括 943 名研究人员,这允许对通过类似选择机制筛选的成功科学家进行系统比较。我们的结果表明,即使在精英科学家群体中,性别仍然存在分层的生产力和认可度模式,而且在认可度方面差距更为明显。我们的研究结果表明,科学政策中的性别平等倡议需要批判性地审查评估标准和评估机制,以强调研究卓越的多种表现形式。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors.引用伦理:对规范与行为的探索性调查
J Acad Ethics. 2025 Jun;23(2):329-346. doi: 10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2. Epub 2024 Jun 5.
2
Editorial: Women in developmental psychopathology and mental health.社论:发展性精神病理学与心理健康领域的女性
Front Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2025 Apr 15;4:1556534. doi: 10.3389/frcha.2025.1556534. eCollection 2025.
4
Gender gaps in research: a systematic review.性别在研究中的差距:系统评价。
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 19;12:1302. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.140694.3. eCollection 2023.
6
The gap that Matilda will bridge: a look at the Colombian case.玛蒂尔达将要弥合的差距:哥伦比亚案例研究。
F1000Res. 2024 Jun 6;13:588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.147674.1. eCollection 2024.
8
Harnessing Biomaterials for Immunomodulatory-Driven Tissue Engineering.利用生物材料进行免疫调节驱动的组织工程
Regen Eng Transl Med. 2023;9(2):224-239. doi: 10.1007/s40883-022-00279-6. Epub 2022 Sep 29.

本文引用的文献

3
Women who win prizes get less money and prestige.获奖的女性获得的奖金和声望较低。
Nature. 2019 Jan;565(7739):287-288. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00091-3.
5
The Matthew effect in science funding.科学基金中的马太效应。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 May 8;115(19):4887-4890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115. Epub 2018 Apr 23.
6
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.
7
Rosalind's Ghost: Biology, Collaboration, and the Female.罗莎琳德的幽灵:生物学、合作与女性
PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov 4;14(11):e2001003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001003. eCollection 2016 Nov.
10
The Matthew effect in empirical data.实证数据中的马太效应。
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Sep 6;11(98):20140378. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.

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