» Articles » PMID: 31312468

Unravelling the Gender Productivity Gap in Science: a Meta-analytical Review

Overview
Journal R Soc Open Sci
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Jul 18
PMID 31312468
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Women underrepresentation in science has frequently been associated with women being less productive than men (i.e. the gender productivity gap), which may be explained by women having lower success rates, producing science of lower impact and/or suffering gender bias. By performing global meta-analyses, we show that there is a gender productivity gap mostly supported by a larger scientific production ascribed to men. However, women and men show similar success rates when the researchers' work is directly evaluated (i.e. publishing articles). Men's success rate is higher only in productivity proxies involving peer recognition (e.g. evaluation committees, academic positions). Men's articles showed a tendency to have higher global impact but only if studies include self-citations. We detected gender bias against women in research fields where women are underrepresented (i.e. those different from Psychology). Historical numerical unbalance, socio-psychological aspects and cultural factors may influence differences in success rate, science impact and gender bias. Thus, the maintenance of a women-unfriendly academic and non-academic environment may perpetuate the gender productivity gap. New policies to build a more egalitarian and heterogeneous scientific community and society are needed to close the gender gap in science.

Citing Articles

Comparative analysis of automatic gender detection from names: evaluating the stability and performance of ChatGPT Namsor, and Gender-API.

Dominguez-Diaz A, Goyanes M, de-Marcos L, Prado-Sanchez V PeerJ Comput Sci. 2024; 10:e2378.

PMID: 39650401 PMC: 11623165. DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2378.


Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries.

Goyanes M, Herrero E, de-Marcos L PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0312731.

PMID: 39565737 PMC: 11578513. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312731.


Lookism, a Leak in the Career Pipeline? Career Perspective Consequences of Lookism Climate and Workplace Incivility.

Chenevert M, Balducci C, Vignoli M Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 39457761 PMC: 11504073. DOI: 10.3390/bs14100883.


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.


A re-evaluation of gender bias in receptiveness to scientific evidence of gender bias.

Shanks D, Coles H, Yeo N R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(9):240419.

PMID: 39233717 PMC: 11371430. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240419.


References
1.
Eagly A, Johannesen-Schmidt M, van Engen M . Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(4):569-91. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569. View

2.
Fox M, Fonseca C, Bao J . Work and family conflict in academic science: patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Soc Stud Sci. 2011; 41(5):715-35. DOI: 10.1177/0306312711417730. View

3.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

4.
Meyer M, Cimpian A, Leslie S . Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:235. PMC: 4356003. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235. View

5.
Mendoza-Denton R, Patt C, Richards M . Go beyond bias training. Nature. 2018; 557(7705):299-301. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-05144-7. View