• 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

女性主导的学科领域,无论对男性还是女性,其研究质量和资助成功率的评估都较低。

Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women.

机构信息

School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Bioprotection Centre of Research Excellence, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, New Zealand.

出版信息

Elife. 2024 Sep 5;13:RP97613. doi: 10.7554/eLife.97613.

DOI:10.7554/eLife.97613
PMID:39235445
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11377033/
Abstract

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.

摘要

我们使用了来自 30 个国家的数据,发现一个学科中的女性人数越多,该学科的研究质量评价就越低,资金成功率也越低。这一现象影响到了男性和女性,并且在年龄、研究成果数量以及在有此类数据的情况下使用文献计量学衡量标准时都具有稳健性。我们的工作建立在其他人的研究基础上,即无论由谁来完成工作,女性的工作都被低估了。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/947dcb09450c/elife-97613-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/901e0957716d/elife-97613-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/2cff82913ddd/elife-97613-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/947dcb09450c/elife-97613-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/901e0957716d/elife-97613-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/2cff82913ddd/elife-97613-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c49b/11377033/947dcb09450c/elife-97613-fig3.jpg

相似文献

1
Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women.女性主导的学科领域,无论对男性还是女性,其研究质量和资助成功率的评估都较低。
Elife. 2024 Sep 5;13:RP97613. doi: 10.7554/eLife.97613.
2
The dementia research career pipeline: Gender disparities in publication authorships and grant funding outcomes at different career stages.痴呆症研究职业发展路径:不同职业阶段在论文发表署名及资助资金成果方面的性别差异
AMRC Open Res. 2022 Aug 10;4:18. doi: 10.12688/amrcopenres.13072.1. eCollection 2022.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty.医学院教员研究基金申请与资助结果中的性别差异。
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Mar;17(2):207-14. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0412.
5
Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.基于研究内容领域的加拿大卫生研究院资助和人员奖项资助率的性别差异:一项回顾性分析。
PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 15;16(10):e1002935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935. eCollection 2019 Oct.
6
Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.血管外科医生中的性别差异。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Oct;72(4):1445-1450. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.12.042. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
7
Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands.在荷兰,性别因素会影响个人获得研究资金的成功率。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12349-53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112. Epub 2015 Sep 21.
8
Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.性别差距是由于对申请人的评价还是科学本身造成的?来自一个国家资助机构的自然实验。
Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):531-540. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4.
9
NIH funding longevity by gender.美国国立卫生研究院按性别资助寿命研究。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 31;115(31):7943-7948. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115. Epub 2018 Jul 16.
10
Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape.女性在学术科学界:变化中的风景。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2014 Dec;15(3):75-141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236.

引用本文的文献

1
Pandora's Box.潘多拉的盒子。
BJPsych Int. 2024 Nov;21(4):102-103. doi: 10.1192/bji.2024.26.

本文引用的文献

1
Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration.探索学术科学六个关键领域的性别偏见:对抗性合作。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2023 Jul;24(1):15-73. doi: 10.1177/15291006231163179. Epub 2023 Apr 26.
2
Levers of change: using mathematical models to compare gender equity interventions in universities.变革杠杆:运用数学模型比较大学中的性别平等干预措施
R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Sep 7;9(9):220785. doi: 10.1098/rsos.220785. eCollection 2022 Sep.
3
Women are credited less in science than men.女性在科学领域的贡献被低估了,相比男性而言。
Nature. 2022 Aug;608(7921):135-145. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
4
The Rhythms of Scholarly Publication: Suggestions to Enhance Bibliometric Comparisons Across Disciplines.学术出版的节奏:增强跨学科文献计量比较的建议
Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 Jan 25;7:812312. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.812312. eCollection 2022.
5
Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles.高影响力期刊文章中的引文存在性别差异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2114509. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509.
6
The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science.科学中的多样性-创新悖论。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 28;117(17):9284-9291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117. Epub 2020 Apr 14.
7
Research performance and age explain less than half of the gender pay gap in New Zealand universities.在新西兰的大学中,研究绩效和年龄解释了不到性别薪酬差距的一半。
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 22;15(1):e0226392. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226392. eCollection 2020.
8
Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists.课题选择导致美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)授予非裔美国/黑人科学家的奖项较少。
Sci Adv. 2019 Oct 9;5(10):eaaw7238. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw7238. eCollection 2019 Oct.
9
Gender and societies: a grassroots approach to women in science.性别与社会:一种针对科学界女性的基层方法。
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Sep 4;6(9):190633. doi: 10.1098/rsos.190633. eCollection 2019 Sep.
10
Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.性别差距是由于对申请人的评价还是科学本身造成的?来自一个国家资助机构的自然实验。
Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):531-540. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4.