Gender-Heterogeneous Working Groups Produce Higher Quality Science

Abstract

Here we present the first empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that a gender-heterogeneous problem-solving team generally produced journal articles perceived to be higher quality by peers than a team comprised of highly-performing individuals of the same gender. Although women were historically underrepresented as principal investigators of working groups, their frequency as PIs at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis is now comparable to the national frequencies in biology and they are now equally qualified, in terms of their impact on the accumulation of ecological knowledge (as measured by the h-index). While women continue to be underrepresented as working group participants, peer-reviewed publications with gender-heterogeneous authorship teams received 34% more citations than publications produced by gender-uniform authorship teams. This suggests that peers citing these publications perceive publications that also happen to have gender-heterogeneous authorship teams as higher quality than publications with gender uniform authorship teams. Promoting diversity not only promotes representation and fairness but may lead to higher quality science.

National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity

“…At institutions of higher education, diversity among faculty and student bodies is beneficial for student learning, skills development, and for advancing intellectual engagement and democratic outcomes (12). One recent and compelling scientific example is a 2013 study showing that sex diversity had a positive effect on the quality of science produced by collaborative working groups of academic scientists (13). Similarly, papers coauthored by ethnically diverse contributors lead to greater contributions to science as measured by impact factor and citations (14).…”

Field Synopsis of the Role of Sex in Stroke Prediction Models

“…Given observed relationships between the sex composition of research groups and conduct of clinical research,26, 27, 28 articles were classified as to whether any of the first, last, or corresponding authors were women by searching author academic or professional websites (ie, LinkedIn, ResearchGate) for sex‐identifying photos or pronouns.…”

Eliminating the Glass Ceiling in Academic Psychiatry

“…In academic medicine, as in many employment settings, women frequently earn less than men and hold fewer senior positions [1][2][3][4][5]. While the magnitude of this disparity varies across professions and employment sectors, it is virtually ubiquitous, and academic medicine is no exception.…”

“…While the magnitude of this disparity varies across professions and employment sectors, it is virtually ubiquitous, and academic medicine is no exception. Among physicians with academic appointments at public medical schools in the USA, women are paid about 80% of what men are paid ($207,000 versus $258,000; data from 2011 to 2013) [1]. Gender disparities should be a concern for all medical specialties, but they are of greatest importance to those that attract the highest proportion of women trainees.…”