Female scientists are considerably more likely to be mistakenly cited as if they were males than vice versa

Gender stereotypes appear so enduring that certain prestigious professions continue to be almost exclusively associated with the male gender. Michał Krawczyk sought to discover if scientist was one such profession by studying the citations to a large sample of academic publications and identifying cases of gender misattribution of the cited author. Although the overall prevalence of gender misattributions is quite low, female scientists are considerably more likely to be mistakenly cited as if they were males than vice versa. These mistakes are most common in business and economics, but virtually never happen in the biomedical fields

Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews : a cross-sectional study

Background: Sex-specific analysis and reporting may allow a better understanding of intervention effects and can support the decision-making process. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs), like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, provide clinical responses transparently and stress gaps of knowledge. This study aimed to describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships. Methods: We searched SRs published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An investigator appraised the sex-related analysis and reporting across sections of SRs and collected data on gender and country of affiliation of the review first and last authors, and a second checked for accuracy. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate logistic regression to explore the association between the gender of the authors and sex-related analysis and reporting. Results: Six hundred and ten Cochrane SRs were identified. After removing those that met no eligibility criteria, 516 reviews of interventions were included. Fifty-six reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) had a higher possibility to report sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12-3.75, P=0.020) than having none. Conclusions: Sex consideration amongst Cochrane SRs was frequently missing. Structured guidance to sex-related analysis and reporting is needed to enhance the external validity of findings. Likewise, including gender diversity within the research workforce and relevant authorship positions may foster equity in the evidence generated

¿Citan las mujeres investigadoras más a las otras mujeres que a los hombres?

The objective of the research presented in this article is to analyze possible citation biases between scientific articles due to the gender of the authors. Various researchers, such as Maliniak, Powers, and Walter (2013); Beaudry and Larivière (2016); Ghiasi et al. (2018); Huang et al. (2019); Potthoff and Zimmermann (2017); and Thelwall (2020), have highlighted the existing gender gap in university careers, and also in scientific publication, a reflection of what happens in society in general. The starting hypothesis of this research is that due to the discrimination they are subjected to, women could react by citing other female authors more. The methodology used has been 1) conducting a bibliographic search on the subject. The search results that express negative situations for women serve as a preamble to the reasoning that is carried out about possible reactions of women to such situations, and the approach of this research, asking us if consciously or out of sensitivity and affinity, women have some tendency to cite the work of their peers more than those of male colleagues. 2) Articles from two complete issues of four journals have been selected, and citations from men to men, men to women, women to women, and women to men have been counted. The results obtained show a difference in behavior according to gender: women are more balanced 40% cite women, and 60% cite men. In contrast, men show more homophilia, sending only 25% of citations to women and 75% to their peers. It is concluded that the gender gap persists and that a detrimental situation continues for women who, by not receiving the deserved accreditation for their work, are unable to reach the higher levels of academic careers. Keywords: gender gap; men; women; academic career; scientific publication; scholarly publication; journals; cites; citations; habits; male homophilia; accreditation.El objetivo de la investigación presentada en este artículo es analizar posibles sesgos de citación entre artículos científicos debidos al género de los autores.  Diversos investigadores, como Maliniak, Powers y Walter (2013); Beaudry y Larivière (2016); Ghiasi et al. (2018); Huang et al. (2019); Potthoff y Zimmermann (2017); y Thelwall (2020), han puesto de relieve la brecha de género existente en las carreras universitarias, y también en la publicación científica, reflejo de lo que ocurre en la Sociedad en general. La hipótesis de partida de esta investigación es que debido a la discriminación de que son objeto, las mujeres podrían reaccionar citando más a otras autoras. La metodología usada ha sido 1) la realización de una búsqueda bibliográfica sobre el tema. Los resultados de la búsqueda, que expresan situaciones negativas para las mujeres, sirven como preámbulo del razonamiento que se lleva a cabo sobre posibles reacciones de las mujeres ante tales situaciones, y del planteamiento de esta investigación, preguntándonos si de forma consciente o por sensibilidad y afinidad las mujeres tienen alguna tendencia a citar más los trabajos de sus congéneres que los de los colegas masculinos. 2) Se han seleccionado los artículos de dos números completos de cuatro revistas, y se han contabilizado las citas de hombres a hombres, hombres a mujeres, mujeres a mujeres y mujeres a hombres. Los resultados obtenidos muestran una diferencia de comportamiento según el género: las mujeres son más equilibradas: citan un 40% a mujeres y un 60% a hombres. En cambio, los hombres demuestran más homofilia enviando solo un 25% de citas a las mujeres y un 75% a sus congéneres. Se concluye que perdura la brecha de género y que continúa una situación perjudicial para las mujeres que, al no recibir la merecida acreditación por sus trabajos, no consiguen alcanzar los niveles superiores de las carreras académicas. Palabras clave: Brecha de género; Hombres; Mujeres; Carrera académica; Publicación científica; Revistas; Citas; Citaciones; Hábitos; Homofilia masculina; Acreditación

MULHERES DIGITAIS: DESAFIOS (A SEREM) VENCIDOS NA ACADEMIA PARA EQUIDADE DE FATO

The goal of this article is to broadly discuss being a woman in Sciences and the search for gender equity, especially in the areas of Computing, and Information and Communication Technology - digital woman. In such a context, this article refutes the stereotype of the multitasking woman as the ideal professional, which has caused mental and physical illness. The method used is bibliographic and qualitative research. The article also includes provocative calls to action and conclusions, so that gender equity in academic careers can be truly achieved.O objetivo deste artigo é discutir amplamente o ser mulher na Academia Científica e a busca por equidade de gênero, em especial nas áreas de Computação e de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação - a mulher digital. Para isso, o artigo refuta o estereótipo da mulher multitarefa como a profissional ideal, o que tem provocado doenças mentais e físicas. O método utilizado é pesquisa bibliográfica e qualitativa. O artigo também inclui chamadas para ação e conclusões provocadoras, para que a equidade de gênero nas carreiras acadêmicas possa ser atingida de fato.&nbsp

Gender Bias in der Wissenschaft : Warum studentische Lehrevaluationen auf den Prüfstand gehören

Frauen sind unter den Professor:innen nach wie vor unterrepräsentiert. Empirische Befunde deuten darauf hin, dass dies unter anderem auf die systematisch negativeren Bewertungen der Leistung von Frauen in der Wissenschaft zurückzuführen ist. Auch studentische Lehrevaluationen fallen schlechter aus, wenn die Lehrperson eine Frau ist. Während diese Ergebnisse Anlass zum Überdenken der Bewertungspraxis von Wissenschaftler:innen geben sollten, sind studentische Lehrevaluationen nach wie vor die wichtigste und oft einzige an Hochschulen praktizierte Form der Lehrbewertung und ihre Ergebnisse spielen eine wichtige Rolle für die wissenschaftliche Karriere. Der vorliegende Beitrag trägt empirische Befunde zu Gender Bias im Rahmen studentischer Lehrevaluationen zusammen, argumentiert, dass diese Bewertungspraxis ungerecht ist und in ihrer aktuellen Form nicht mehr praktiziert werden sollte und skizziert Vorschläge für alternative, fairere Evaluationsverfahren. Women are still underrepresented among the higher ranks of academia. Empirical evidence indicates that a central reason for this underrepresentation consists in the fact that women’s academic performance is evaluated much more harshly than men’s. One example for such evaluation biases are student teaching evaluations, which are systematically worse for female than for male teachers. Considered against the background of the low percentage of female professors, these results should be alarming, but in fact, student teaching evaluations continue to be the major if not the only form of teaching evaluation and their results are of pivotal importance for the academic career. This paper reviews studies on gender biases in student teaching evaluations, argues that they should no longer be used in their current form and sketches fairer alternatives

A Qualitative Investigation of Women Academics' Citation Experiences Through a Marketing Lens

This qualitative research aims to provide a unique angle to examine and contribute to a controversial topic—gender gap in citation. Some research has concluded that women tend to cite themselves less than their male colleagues do, while other research has argued that the gender gap in self-citation does not exist at. This study fills the gap by taking an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach to explore how women academics experience and make decisions of whether to cite themselves or not. The nature of academia requires academic researchers to create and disseminate knowledge. From a marketing perspective, academics are like entrepreneurs because they must generate and market their own work. By investigating the motivations and tensions around self-citation using in-depth interviews, this study also explores female academics’ self-branding strategies and their current career environment in the academy. This study not only serves academics by investigating a mundane but influential aspect of academic life, but also helps non-academic stakeholders, such as policy makers and academic administrators, by providing the language and framework to understand women’s career strategies

Understanding the Impact of Scientific Testimony on Potential Jury Members: Independent and Interactive Effects of Expert Characteristics and Jury Member’s Social Location

As science and technology evolve, they impact society at different levels. With these changes, it is important to understand how members of society will be affected. One area where there has been a rise in the use of scientific information is in jury trials. Those who are on trial for a criminal offense are more often relying on forensic evidence, and forensic experts, to aid in their defense, and those who are prosecuting a criminal case are also relying on forensic evidence and forensic experts. However, forensic evidence is not consistent in type or interpretation – what one person may find at a crime scene could differ than what another person does, and how one forensic scientist interprets a piece of forensic evidence can differ from what another forensic scientist will find. Because of inconsistencies in forensic science, and other scientific disciplines generally, there is a legal standard that judges use to evaluate whether a potential expert has the scientific expertise to be allowed to give testimony in a criminal trial – namely, the Daubert standard. However, who is a scientific expert will vary – an expert will have different credentials, professional experience, and personal characteristics that will influence how a potential juror will perceive them. Despite there being a vast body of academic literature focusing on forensic expert testimony, there are gaps in understanding how indicators of credentials and expertise specific to forensic science are understood by potential jurors. And, it is not only important to understand the characteristics that potential jurors associate with a “good” scientific expert; it is also important to understand how a juror’s own social characteristics and experiences will influence their perceptions of forensic expert testimony. Using an experimental design, this dissertation sought to better understand how an expert’s credentials impact how a potential juror will evaluate a forensic expert’s testimony. Participants were recruited using MTurk, resulting in 857 usable responses. Participants were randomly assigned one of eight vignettes designed to be understood as an excerpt of a court transcript, where an attorney was questioning a forensic expert about blood spatter patterns. The vignettes varied in how the expert was addressed, indicating the expert’s credentials (Dr. vs. Mr.), the expert’s laboratory affiliation (State vs. Private), and the forensic expert’s gender (Tim vs. Amy). Three studies were constructed from the data. Each study utilized a combined-scale variable representing credibility as the measurable outcome. The first study (n = 857) used the vignettes as a control variable, focusing solely on understanding how a juror’s own social characteristics influence how they perceive forensic expert testimony, generally. The second study (n = 211) focused on the expert’s gender, and how the expert’s perceived gender influences how a potential juror will evaluate the expert testimony. Finally, the third study (n = 646) focused on how the credentials of the expert, along with their laboratory affiliation, impact how a participant rated the forensic expert testimony