Gender and research publishing in India: Uniformly high inequality?

Thelwall, Mike; Bailey, Carol; Makita, Meiko; Sud, Pardeep; Madalli, Devika P.

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.003

Cited by 42 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite formal gender equality in employment being half a century old in many countries (e.g., the US Civil Rights Act of 1964; the UK Sex Discrimination Act 1975), females have not yet achieved parity in academia in most countries (Larivière, Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto, 2013). Current imbalances include fewer females overall (Shannon, Jansen, Williams, Cáceres, Motta, et al, 2019) and in most fields (Thelwall, Bailey, Makita, Sud, & Madalli, 2019;Thelwall, Bailey, Tobin, & Bradshaw, 2019) as well as even lower proportions of females in promoted posts (e.g., Bosquet, Combes, & García-Peñalosa, 2018). Gender imbalances seem to be decreasing (e.g., Winchester & Browning, 2015) but are an ongoing concern and may not disappear in our lifetimes (Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations

Thelwall

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics. This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact 1996-2018 for six million articles from seven large English-speaking nations:

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations

Thelwall

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, there is also a publication gender gap in psychology, and this is especially marked in authorship and in high-impact journals. This is true of other countries as well (e.g., Thelwall et al, 2019) The selling point of rigorous academic work is its objectivity. But how can science be objective if it is interpreted by a handful of people (Meadon & Spurrett, 2010) and overlooks a majority of the population?…”

Section: Sex Of the Researchersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Too WEIRD, Too Fast: Preprints about COVID-19 in the Psychological Sciences

Puthillam¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

That American and European participants are overrepresented in psychological studies has been previously established. In addition, researchers also often tend to be similarly homogenous. This continues to be alarming, especially given that this research is being used to inform policies across the world. In the face of a global pandemic where behavioral scientists propose solutions, we ask who is conducting research and on what samples. Forty papers on COVID-19 published in PsyArxiV were analyzed; the nationalities of the authors and the samples they recruited were assessed. Findings suggest that an overwhelming majority of the samples recruited were from the US and the authors were based in US and German institutions. Next, men constituted a large proportion of primary and sole authors. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Field topics and disciplinary cultures tend to be international to some extent, so it is plausible that subjects would have similar gender proportions internationally, especially in countries with similar cultures and a shared language. Previous research has found this to be broadly true at the discipline level, but with some major exceptions (e.g., veterinary research is the most female-friendly broad field in the United States, but the least in India: Thelwall et al, 2019aThelwall et al, , 2019b). • RQ2: Are gender differences in first-author citation advantages similar across narrow fields in large English-speaking countries?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…As people cite work that may have influenced them, it could be expected that bias against women might translate into fewer citations for their articles. Evidence in support of this has been found in a degree of gender homophily in citation practices (Mitchell, Lange, & Brus, 2013;Potthoff & Zimmermann, 2017), but it is impossible to be sure that this is not due to gender differences in methods and topic choices, even within narrow subjects (Grant, Ward, & Rong, 1987;Thelwall, Bailey, et al, 2019a, 2019b. Overall biases have also been sought by comparing the citation rates of female-and male-authored journal articles, with the assumption that a lower rate of citation for female-authored work might reflect bias against women (Larivière et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia

Thelwall

Sud

2020

Quantitative Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible under-citation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first- and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field-specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities.

show abstract

Gender and research publishing in India: Uniformly high inequality?

Cited by 42 publications

References 54 publications

Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations

Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations

Too WEIRD, Too Fast: Preprints about COVID-19 in the Psychological Sciences

Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About