Gender bias in (neuro)science: Facts, consequences, and solutions

Schrouff, Jessica; Pischedda, Doris; Genon, Sarah; Fryns, Gregory; Pinho, Ana Luısa; Vassena, Eliana; Liuzzi, Antonietta Gabriella; Ferreira, Fabio S.

doi:10.1111/ejn.14397

Cited by 42 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Like many scientific disciplines, the field of neuroscience currently faces many structural and social inequities, including marked gender imbalances (22). While the task of addressing these imbalances often depends in part on people in positions of power (e.g., journal editors (21), grant reviewers and agencies (3)(4)(5), department chairs (10)(11)(12), and presidents of scientific societies (20)), many imbalances are caused and perpetuated by researchers at all levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other explanations, like the overrepresentation of men in course syllabi (48) and in conference speaking roles (22), could partly explain the difference between groups (e.g., women may take more courses taught by women, who discuss and assign more work by women). Yet mechanisms like these would likely be more consistent with an overall overcitation of men that does not differ based on the gender of the citing authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, major neuroscience societies have publicly discussed ways to improve representation (20), and journals have sought to balance the composition of editors and reviewers (21). On the heels of these efforts, a recent study showed that authorship and public speaking have indeed become more balanced in the last decade (22). However, measures of authorship and conference participation reflect only one aspect of success in a field, and the presence of differential engagement with scholarship could lead to prolonged inequities in other areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

Dworkin

Linn

Teich

et al. 2020

Preprint

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like many scientific disciplines, neuroscience has increasingly attempted to confront pervasive gender imbalances within the field. While much of the conversation has centered around publishing and conference participation, recent research in other fields has called attention to the prevalence of gender bias in citation practices. Because of the downstream effects that citations can have on visibility and career advancement, understanding and eliminating gender bias in citation practices is vital for addressing inequity in a scientific community. In this study, we sought to determine whether there is evidence of gender bias in the citation practices of neuroscientists. Utilizing data from five top neuroscience journals, we indeed find that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender was not a factor in referencing. Importantly, we show that this overcitation of men and undercitation of women is driven largely by the citation practices of men, and is increasing with time despite greater diversity in the academy. We develop a co-authorship network to determine the degree to which homophily in researchers' social networks explains gendered citation practices and we find that men tend to overcite other men even when their social networks are representative of the field. We discuss possible mechanisms and consider how individual researchers might incorporate these findings into their own referencing practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

Dworkin

Linn

Teich

et al. 2020

Preprint

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mentoring, sponsorship and feedback is another area under the control of individuals. Women are less likely to be mentored, less likely to be sponsored and less likely to be asked to apply for positions than men (Sheltzer and Smith 2014;Schrouff et al 2019). There is also evidence that the advice and feedback received by females in the workplace is less specific and less actionable than that received by males (Sanders et al 2017).…”

Section: Is the Playing Field Not Level Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Women in freshwater science: challenges and solutions for achieving equity

Lester¹,

Rosten²

2020

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We are very pleased to publish the ‘Neuro‐Opinion: Gender bias in (neuro)science: facts, consequences and solutions’ (Schrouff et al., ). As outlined in this article, gender bias in neuroscience quite clearly still exists in 2019.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%