Suppr超能文献

学术领域的性别均衡、研究产出,以及对男女学者的认可。

Disciplinary gender balance, research productivity, and recognition of men and women in academia.

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. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0293080. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293080. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Gender disparities in science have become a salient concern for policy makers and researchers. Previous studies have documented a gender gap in research productivity and recognition in the sciences, and different reasons for this gap have been proposed. In this study, we examine four academic fields with different proportions of men and women in their population. We address the following questions: What is the relationship between the gendered make-up of a field and the productivity and recognition of men and women scientists in that academic field? What is the relationship between the publication patterns of men and women in different academic fields and their productivity and recognition? We find that gendered patterns of productivity and recognition favour men in man-dominated subfields (Mathematical Physics and Software Engineering), while women were more productive and highly cited in one woman-dominated subfield (Nursing), though not in another (Psychology). Nursing, a woman-gendered field, provides an interesting counterpoint to the most usual findings regarding gender disparities in academia. Our findings highlight the need to disaggregate academic fields and to bring to the forefront other disciplines that remain under investigated in analyses of gender gaps to potentially elucidate conflicting findings in the literature.

摘要

性别差异在科学界已经引起了政策制定者和研究人员的关注。先前的研究记录了科学界在研究生产力和认可方面的性别差距,并提出了造成这种差距的不同原因。在这项研究中,我们考察了四个在人口中男女比例不同的学术领域。我们提出了以下问题:一个领域的性别构成与该学术领域中男性和女性科学家的生产力和认可度之间存在什么关系?不同学术领域中男性和女性的出版模式与他们的生产力和认可度之间存在什么关系?我们发现,在男性主导的子领域(数学物理和软件工程)中,生产力和认可度的性别模式有利于男性,而在一个女性主导的子领域(护理)中,女性的生产力更高,引用率也更高,尽管在另一个领域(心理学)并非如此。护理是一个女性化的领域,这与学术界性别差异的常见发现形成了有趣的对比。我们的研究结果强调了需要对学术领域进行细分,并将其他在性别差距分析中研究不足的学科置于突出位置,以阐明文献中相互矛盾的发现。

相似文献

1
Disciplinary gender balance, research productivity, and recognition of men and women in academia.
PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0293080. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293080. eCollection 2023.
2
Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape.
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2014 Dec;15(3):75-141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236.
3
Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields.
J Appl Psychol. 2018 Dec;103(12):1283-1306. doi: 10.1037/apl0000331. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
4
Gender disparities in research productivity among 9952 academic physicians.
Laryngoscope. 2013 Aug;123(8):1865-75. doi: 10.1002/lary.24039. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
6
The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons.
Spine J. 2022 May;22(5):716-722. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.003. Epub 2021 Dec 11.
7
Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa.
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 29;15(10):e0240903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240903. eCollection 2020.
9
Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review.
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Jun 12;6(6):181566. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181566. eCollection 2019 Jun.

引用本文的文献

1
Editorial: Women in CNS drug delivery: 2022-2024.
Front Drug Deliv. 2024 Oct 15;4:1400937. doi: 10.3389/fddev.2024.1400937. eCollection 2024.
2
Gender differences in the Italian academic landscape: Examining inequalities within the medical area in the last decade.
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 23;20(7):e0325705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325705. eCollection 2025.
3
Social media in advancing equity and collaboration in rheumatology: the CORDIALITY review.
RMD Open. 2025 Mar 27;11(1):e005490. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2025-005490.

本文引用的文献

1
Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape.
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 5;18(4):e0283106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283106. eCollection 2023.
2
Gender gaps at the academies.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Jan 24;120(4):e2212421120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2212421120. Epub 2023 Jan 19.
3
The authorship in nursing literature: an against trend?
Acta Biomed. 2020 Nov 30;91(12-S):e2020005. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i12-S.9583.
4
The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.
Nat Neurosci. 2020 Aug;23(8):918-926. doi: 10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y. Epub 2020 Jun 19.
5
Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Mar 3;117(9):4609-4616. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
6
Authorship and citation gender trends in immunology and microbiology.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020 Jan 1;367(2). doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnaa021.
7
Testing a critical cultural wealth model of well-being among first-generation students.
J Couns Psychol. 2020 Mar;67(2):171-183. doi: 10.1037/cou0000388. Epub 2019 Nov 7.
8
Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review.
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Jun 12;6(6):181566. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181566. eCollection 2019 Jun.
9
The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 19;16(4):e2004956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956. eCollection 2018 Apr.
10
A Bibliometric History of the Journal of Psychology Between 1936 and 2015.
J Psychol. 2018 May 19;152(4):199-225. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1440516. Epub 2018 Apr 3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验