Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country

The 100 Leading Contributors to English-Language Gerontological Journals: An International Study of Scholarly Impact

The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.

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

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.

Identifying the Leading Global Contributors to Scholarship in Religion Journals: A Bibliometric Study

This study identified the 100 most impactful global contributors to religion journals and mapped their respective disciplinary affiliations. To conduct this investigation, we performed a secondary data analysis of a Scopus-derived database featuring the world's leading scientists. The mean contributor published 51.93 papers, had an h-index of 13.57, and an hm-index 11.50. Most contributors were located in the USA with the most common disciplinary affiliations being religion, non-specialized (n = 22), sociology, non-specialized (n = 21), sociology of religion (n = 20), and theology (n = 11). The results reveal that religion discourse is populated by some of the leading scholars in the world. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's knowledge development.

Evolution of gender research in the social sciences in post-Soviet countries: a bibliometric analysis

While interest in mapping the patterns of publication and research in post-Soviet countries has been growing steadily, there is a gap in knowledge about how gender is featured in post-Soviet research and publications. Using a descriptive bibliometric approach and metadata extracted from 2822 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection database for 1993-2021, this study seeks to understand the evolution of gender research in post-Soviet countries. The analysis revealed a notable increase in gender research and publications since the breakup of the Soviet Union, particularly between 2017 and 2021; however, the contribution of the post-Soviet countries to international research on gender remains insignificant. Russia, Estonia and Ukraine are at the forefront of gender research among post-Soviet states, while Caucasus and Central Asian countries, except Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, contribute to the lower degree. Although research collaboration among post-Soviet researchers is increasing, researchers tend to mainly collaborate internally with authors from the same countries and institutions, and very few authors collaborate across post-Soviet states or internationally. The topics of publications in post-Soviet gender research incorporate different subjects, with most articles published within psychology and behavioral sciences, while gender research in sociological and political economy disciplines is still evolving.

Research patterns in communication (2009–2019): testing female representation and productivity differences, within the most cited authors and the field

This study compares the share of male/female as first authors, the growth of authors per paper, and the differences in publication productivity in the last decade of the most cited authors versus the field of communication (i.e., a representative sample of papers published in the field of communication). Results indicate that there are significantly more female first authors in the field than a decade ago, but their proportion among the most cited authors has not grown at a similar pace. Likewise, the number of authors per paper has significantly increased in the field, but not among the most cited authors, who, in turn, publish significantly more papers than the field, both in 2009 and 2019. And not only that, the productivity gap between the most cited authors and the field has substantially increased between the span of this decade. Theoretical implications of these findings and suggestions for future studies are also discussed.

Higher Quantity, Higher Quality? Current Publication Trends of the Most Productive Journal Authors on the Field of Communication Studies

The aim of this paper is to examine the publication trajectories of the most productive scholars in communication and media studies between 2015 and 2019. Based on the analysis of 1482 papers of the top-publishing one hundred communication scholars, we identified 126 Scopus-indexed journals in which leading scholars publish, and also examine the main publication clusters. Our results suggest that amongst the most productive authors, quantity does not go to the detriment of quality as the most prolific scholars usually publish in the most prestigious journals of the field. Besides defining thematic clusters, we also identified the most important networks of journals that are the most popular amongst prolific researchers.

Measuring publication diversity among the most productive scholars: how research trajectories differ in communication, psychology, and political science

Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enterprise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empirical evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals than vice-versa, while psychologists’ largely neglect them both. Our findings also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geographic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research contributions and target readers.

Further Divided Gender Gaps in Research Productivity and Collaboration during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Coronavirus-related Literature

Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females’ leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males’ authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females’ lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps.

Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems

Biological age is an important sociodemographic factor in studies on academic careers (research productivity, scholarly impact, and collaboration patterns). It is assumed that the academic age, or the time elapsed from the first publication, is a good proxy for biological age. In this study, we analyze the limitations of the proxy in academic career studies, using as an example the entire population of Polish academic scientists and scholars visible in the last decade in global science and holding at least a PhD (N = 20,569). The proxy works well for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines; however, for non-STEMM disciplines (particularly for humanities and social sciences), it has a dramatically worse performance. This negative conclusion is particularly important for systems that have only recently visible in global academic journals. The micro-level data suggest a delayed participation of social scientists and humanists in global science networks, with practical implications for predicting biological age from academic age. We calculate correlation coefficients, present contingency analysis of academic career stages with academic positions and age groups, and create a linear multivariate regression model. Our research suggests that in scientifically developing countries, academic age as a proxy for biological age should be used more cautiously than in advanced countries: ideally, it should be used only for STEMM disciplines.

A Female Career in Research

After a long career at the National Center for Health Statistics, I retired and joined the Stanford Prevention Research Center as an unpaid associate. I was once described by a former US Food and Drug Administration commissioner as "one of the great epidemiologists." The chair of the Harvard nutrition department, speaking on National Public Radio, once described my research as "rubbish." Both may be exaggerations. Here I address some of the events that led to these contrasting descriptions. I also address the extent to which the so-called Matilda effect may have influenced my career. Are women in science on an equal footing with men? The Matilda effect suggests not. Unlike the Matthew effect for scientists, whereby those of higher prestige accrue a disproportionate share of recognition and rewards, the Matilda effect proposes that women scientists are systematically undervalued and underrecognized. I could never get a faculty job and was often treated like an underling. Nonetheless I persevered to publish highly cited research on several high-profile and sometimes controversial topics. Though overt sexism in science and workplaces has diminished over the course of my career, progress toward eliminating unconscious bias has been slower. The Matthew and Matilda effects are still powerful forces that distort incentives and rewards in science. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Nutrition, Volume 42 is August 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. I find that (a) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016–2020; and (d) when the numbers of female full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation.

Scientists have favorable opinions on immunity certificates but raise concerns regarding fairness and inequality

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected over 12,000 responses from a survey of scientists, who were asked to express their opinions on immunity certificates (also called "immunity passports") as a potential instrument to lessen the impact of the crisis. Overall, we find that scientists perceive immunity certificates as favorable for public health (50.2%) and the state of the economy (54.4%) while one-fifth (19.1%) and one-sixth (15.4%) disagree. Scientists stipulate some concerns about fairness (36.5%) and inequality (22.4%) arising from implementation of immunity certification. We find some smaller differences among scientific fields, particularly between health scientists and social scientists, with the latter being slightly more positive about the effect of immunity certification. Scholars in the United States, including health scientists, are more likely to view the immunity certificates favorably and mention fewer concerns about this policy's effect on fairness and inequality. Female scholars are significantly less in favor of immunity certificates, while scientists with more conservative political views hold more favorable opinions. Our results reveal that given the uncertainties during an early phase of a pandemic, scientists see scope for immunity certification to lessen the general societal impacts of the crisis.

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.