The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research

Wu, Cary; Fuller, Sylvia; Z, Shi; Wilkes, Rima

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230043

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it is also possible that men might volunteer more readily to take up this time-consuming role -our data does not allow us to shed any light on the inner discussions beyond response time. Regardless, our effect is consistent with other studies showing that women are disproportionately engaged in internalinstitutional facing duties, whereas men are disproportionately engaged in community-facing roles, which are also more associated with eminence, networking, and other benefits related to the more visible duties of the reviewing RE leading the peer review (11,13,19,21,67). The reasons underlying this pattern should be further studied, however women's different time allocation may reflect a purposeful choice to contribute to their institutions.…”

Section: Gender Disparitiessupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This gender gap in representation and career advancement is present across all career stages (1,(6)(7)(8)(9). For example, beyond the clear disproportionate representation of men over women in senior investigator categories, women receive fewer and less prestigious awards (10)(11)(12)(13)(14), obtain fewer grants (15)(16)(17), are less frequently invited to write review or comment papers (18)(19)(20)(21), and have lower salaries relative to men (6,7,22). Gender disparities at senior levels are also noticeable for services to the broader scholarly community, where men are more likely to provide higher status external service, whereas women tend to perform lower status internal service (11,23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Malkinson

Terhune

Kollamkulam

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editorial decision-making is a fundamental element of the scientific enterprise. We examined whether contributions to editorial decisions at various stages of the publication process is subject to gender disparity, based on analytics collected by the biomedical researcher-led journal eLife. Despite efforts to increase women representation, the board of reviewing editors (BRE) was men-dominant (69%). Moreover, authors suggested more men from the BRE pool, even after correcting for men’s numerical over-representation. Although women editors were proportionally involved in the initial editorial process, they were under-engaged in editorial activities involving reviewers and authors. Additionally, converging evidence showed gender homophily in manuscripts assignment, such that men Senior Editors over-engaged men Reviewing Editors. This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias.

show abstract

Section: Gender Disparitiessupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Malkinson

Terhune

Kollamkulam

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When analyzing the gender pairs of first and last author, an overall pattern of gender homophily was apparent as evidenced in previous studies in STEMM fields [ 23 , 31 , 32 ]. A study by Holman et al [ 31 ] found that researchers tend to work with same gendered colleagues across disciplines in the life sciences, which included dentistry.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Woman authorship in pre-print versus peer-reviewed oral health-related publications: A two-year observational study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Women in oral health science face similar societal issues and challenges as those in other STEMM careers, and gender disparities continue to exist as evidenced by fewer women represented as first and last authors in scientific publications. Pre-prints may serve as a conduit to immediately disseminating one’s work, bypassing the arduous peer review process and its associated inherent biases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to 1] compare the gender of first and last authors in pre-print versus peer reviewed publications, 2] examine the composition of first and last author pairs as stratified by publication type, and 3] examine the correlation between woman authorship and institutional geographic location and publication metrics stratified by publication type. Methods The keyword “oral health” was used to search for publications in BioRxiv and Pubmed in the years 2018 and 2019. Gender of first and last authors were determined, and its frequency was considered as the primary outcome. Additionally, the geographic location of the author’s associated institution and publication metrics measured by Altmetrics score were extracted. Data was descriptively summarized by frequencies and percentages. Chi-square analysis was conducted for categorical variables which included the relationship between gender and publication type as well as gender and region of author’s associated institution. Binomial regression analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between gender and Altmetrics. Results Woman first authors comprised 40.3% of pre-prints and 64.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. Woman last authors comprised 31.3% of pre-prints and 61.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. When analyzing the relationships between first and last author, the Man-Man pairing represented 47.7% of the pre-print publications and the Woman-Woman pairing comprised a majority of the of the peer review publications at 47.5%. All results were statistically significant with a p-value <0.05. No significant correlation was found between region of institution or Altmetrics and gender of first or last authors [p>0.05]. Conclusion For the first time in oral health science, it was found that women show higher representation as first and last author positions in peer reviewed publications versus pre-prints.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that women have a lower wage [7,8], are promoted more slowly [9], receive less research funding [10], and their proportion in editorial and faculties boards is lower [2] A different line of studies of gender imbalance has focused on knowledge production. There is a wide choice of literature discussing the persistence of gender differences in the production and publication of scientific knowledge, such as bias in the journal reviewing process [11], differences in the number of citations of their work in comparison with their male colleagues [11], a gender asymmetry in collaborations [12] or even, a disparity in commenting on published academic research [13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Closing the gender gap at academic conferences: A tool for monitoring and assessing academic events

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of participation in academic conferences is well known for members of the scientific community. It is not only for the feedback and the improvement of the work, it is also about career development, building networks and increasing visibility. Nevertheless, women continue to be under-represented in these academic events and even more so in the most visible positions such as speaking roles. This paper presents the development of a tool based on performance indicators, which will allow monitoring and evaluating gender roles and inequalities in academic conferences in order to tackle the underrepresentation of women. The study identifies relevant perspectives (participation, organizational structure and attitudes) and designs specific lists of performance indicators for each of them. The tool is based on a combination of two multicriteria techniques, Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Hierarchy Process Sort, and a qualitative analysis based on in-depth interviews and information gathered from a focus group. The use of the AHP multi-criteria decision technique has allowed us to weight the indicators according to the opinion of several experts, and with them to be able to generate from these weightings composite indicators for each of the three dimensions. The most relevant indicators were for the participation dimension. Additionally, the tool developed has been applied to an academic conference which has been monitored in real time. The results are shown as a traffic light visualization approach, where red means bad performance, yellow average performance and green good performance, helping us to present the results for each indicator. Finally, proposals for improvement actions addressed to the red indicators are explained. The work carried out highlights the need to broaden the study of gender equality in academic conferences, not only regarding the participation but also the performance of different roles and functions.

show abstract

The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research

Cited by 16 publications

References 54 publications

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Woman authorship in pre-print versus peer-reviewed oral health-related publications: A two-year observational study

Closing the gender gap at academic conferences: A tool for monitoring and assessing academic events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About