» Articles » PMID: 39565737

Gender Differences in Representation, Citations, and H-index: An Empirical Examination of the Field of Communication Across the Ten Most Productive Countries

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2024 Nov 20
PMID 39565737
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Women researchers have been shown to be underrepresented in science, especially among the most productive scholars. This is especially relevant in the social sciences and humanities fields, where gender parity is closer, but disparities among top scholars are still pronounced. The gender gap in the field of communication has been explored from several approaches, but studies focusing on gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index are rather scarce. Drawing upon data retrieved from SciVal, we conducted a comparative study of the top 500 and top 100 most productive scholars (N = 5000) for each of the ten most productive countries in communication research in the 2019-2022 period: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, Germany, India, Australia, Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands. The results indicate a consistent underrepresentation of women, particularly among the top 500, across countries. Despite women being cited more frequently than men in some countries over shorter time frames, a gender bias persists favoring men, particularly when considering the h-index. All in all, our study shows that, despite hints of gender equality in citation patterns, the gender gap still constitutes a structural part of the field of communication when addressing gender representation in research productivity and long-term dynamics of research impact.

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.
Wang X, Dworkin J, Zhou D, Stiso J, Falk E, Bassett D . Gendered Citation Practices in the Field of Communication. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2021; 45(2):134-153. PMC: 8443000. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180. View

3.
Eagly A, Karau S . Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev. 2002; 109(3):573-98. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573. View

4.
Ceci S, Kahn S, Williams W . Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2023; 24(1):15-73. PMC: 10394402. DOI: 10.1177/15291006231163179. View

5.
Sebo P . Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021; 109(3):414-421. PMC: 8485937. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1185. View