Early in the pandemic (April 2020) I started what became a long #Twitter thread on #gender #bias in academic #publishing.

Update. New study of #editors of medical-education journals published in the global #south: "Among 1219 editors, 57.5% were men. Out of 46 editors in chief (EICs), 34.7% were women, and 60.9% were based in high income countries. No EIC belonged to low-income country. The proportion of female advisory board members was found to be positively correlated with the presence of a female EIC."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2249212

Update. Anna Kristina Hultgren and Pejman Habibie (eds.), _Women in Scholarly Publishing_, a new book from Routledge.

At least temporarily free to read from this link.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Women_in_Scholarly_Publishing/M1rXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1979&printsec=frontcover

Publisher's page, suggesting that the book is not out yet and not OA.
https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Scholarly-Publishing-A-Gender-Perspective/Hultgren-Habibie/p/book/9781032045207

Update. New study, my paraphrase: Gender and racial bias in academic publishing doesn't show up just in acceptance rates, citation rates, and representation rates on editorial boards. It also shows up in publishing rates during times of stress, such as the pandemic. Using publication tallies as an assessment metric can aggravate this bias.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291124

Update. In tension with the results above (previous toot, this thread), this study finds that "gender gaps in productivity are highly context-dependent; once scientific field, academic position, institutional affiliation and age are controlled for, most gender differences all but disappear."
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003193586-9/beyond-essentialism-lynn-nygaard-dag-aksnes-fredrik-niclas-piro

Update. New study: "The proportion of positive [supporting] and negative [criticizing] citations was higher for publications whose first/last authors were women (vs. men), while the opposite was true for neutral [mentioning] citations."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04827-x

Update. In medical journals, "women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for #misconduct."
https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e48529

#Gender #Medicine #Quality #Retractions

Update. New study: "In three relatively #gender-balanced disciplines representing humanities (#history), social sciences (#economics), and natural sciences (#environmental sciences)" male authors consider more different journals before submission and resubmit more often after rejection.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04829-9

Update. The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (#JPSM) studied its own publishing history and released the results.
https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(23)00739-X/fulltext

"There were differences in acceptance rates by region of residence, ethnicity, and race but not by gender. Asian authors and authors residing in regions outside of North America had greater odds of rejection compared to White or North American authors."

Update. New study (book chapter): "Male researchers publish more papers than female researchers & this difference increases over the course of scientific careers.…By contrast, female researchers achieve higher citation impact & publish in more prestigious journals than male researchers over the course of their careers, especially among researchers with short careers…The results suggest that many women with high potential leave the science system early in their careers."
https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32448/1/Tekles_Alexander.pdf#page=155

Update. New study using #ChatGPT to assess referee reports: "Female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers… In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author."
https://elifesciences.org/articles/90230

#AI #Bias #Gender #PeerReview

Update. "Between 2015 and 2022, our findings suggests that men [in #Germany, in #economics] tend to seek reputation, while women favor visibility through #OpenAccess, at least at the margin. While authorship in teams can dilute these behavioral patterns, female economists publish more single-authored papers. Overall female researchers appear to contribute more to the public good of open science."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104874

Summary by one of the co-authors:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/11/23/female-researchers-are-less-influenced-by-journal-prestige-will-it-hold-back-their-careers/

Update. I missed this piece from March 2022: "This research is the first to comprehensively study the 'gender solo research gap' among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system…The gender solo research gap in #Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04308-7

Update. The doctoral dissertations of women are interdisciplinary less often than those of men, and this could "hinder their [women's] career advancement."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02392-5

Update. New study: "Merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate [gender] bias. Measures accounting for women’s circumstances and needs…and raising editorial awareness to women’s needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294805

Update. "Citation attributions exhibit gender homophily…that is, gender alignment between citing and cited authors. This pattern greatly disadvantages women in fields where they are underrepresented."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895

Summary
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03474-9

Update. From a survey of university faculty in the US: "Males were twice as likely as females to use #AI to recommend journals to which to submit research articles."
https://www.primaryresearch.com/AddCart.aspx?ReportID=790

(Unfortunately the full results are not #OpenAccess and not even close. One copy of the PDF costs $98.)

Update. This qualification applies to all the studies I've collected in this thread: "Different research does not understand the concepts of 'man/woman' and 'male/female' in the same way, and there is no discussion nor written consensus on how to tackle these issues ethically and correctly within #Bibliometrics."
https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/handle/10481/88251/Gender1.pdf

Another qualification: Most of these studies determine the sex/gender of authors by using software that makes guesses based on their names.

#Gender

Update. Missed this one from Nov 2017: The #OpenAccess citation advantage (#OACA) is real and it "benefits male and female political scientists at similar rates. Thus, OA negates the gender citation advantage that typically accrues to male political scientists."
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000014

#PoliticalScience #SSH

Update. Nature studied its own recent publication record. It found that just 17% of its submissions were from authors who identify as women. Also found a slightly lower acceptance rate for women than for men (8% v 9%). This editorial outlines steps to do better, inc asking authors to self-report their #gender. The journal promises periodic progress reports.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00640-5

Update. "Drawing on the archives of the LSE Impact Blog, this review brings together ten posts that explore the gendered nature of research and scholarly communication."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/03/08/women-academia-and-the-unequal-production-of-knowledge-an-lse-impact-blog-review/

#Gender #ScholComm