» Articles » PMID: 31216351

Male Principal Investigators (almost) Don't Publish with Women in Ecology and Zoology

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Jun 20
PMID 31216351
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts-especially by male senior authors-are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.

Citing Articles

Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias.

Fontanarrosa G, Zarba L, Aschero V, Dos Santos D, Nunez Montellano M, Plaza Behr M PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0307813.

PMID: 39298391 PMC: 11412523. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307813.


Trends in research approaches and gender in plant ecology dissertations over four decades.

Poddar U, Lam K, Gurevitch J Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(6):e11554.

PMID: 38863722 PMC: 11165400. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.11554.


Gender shapes the formation of review paper collaborations in microbiology.

Wheatley R, Ogunlana L Proc Biol Sci. 2023; 290(2002):20230965.

PMID: 37403511 PMC: 10320333. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.0965.


Gender differences in animal cognition science.

Gavriilidi I, Van Damme R Anim Cogn. 2023; 26(4):1295-1305.

PMID: 37071241 DOI: 10.1007/s10071-023-01777-y.


Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?.

Cassia-Silva C, Silva Rocha B, Fernanda Lievano-Latorre L, Sobreiro M, Diele-Viegas L PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15186.

PMID: 37065686 PMC: 10100800. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15186.


References
1.
Pell A . Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia. J Anim Sci. 1996; 74(11):2843-8. DOI: 10.2527/1996.74112843x. View

2.
Woolley A, Chabris C, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone T . Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010; 330(6004):686-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147. View

3.
Martinez E, Botos J, Dohoney K, Geiman T, Kolla S, Olivera A . Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep. 2007; 8(11):977-81. PMC: 2247379. DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401110. View

4.
Campbell L, Mehtani S, Dozier M, Rinehart J . Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e79147. PMC: 3813606. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079147. View

5.
Budden A, Tregenza T, Aarssen L, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie C . Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 23(1):4-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008. View