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

Update. Most journals of radiology (60.3%) fail to meet even one of the #SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) criteria. However, those that did had higher journal impact factors.
https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(24)00344-9/fulltext

#DEI #Gender #Impact #JIF

Update. The journal 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 & 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 is calling for submissions on "the relationship between feminism, metascience, and open science."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181MycZzTQ5iuHfbbpuDOE59Y-UKejLGD/view

#Feminism #Gender #OpenScience
@openscience

Update. In the humanities, in the period 2000-2014, "male academics published 2917 books (averaging 3.41 books) and the 760 female faculty members published 1918 books (averaging 2.52 books), indicating “gender disparity” in scholarly publishing."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-66170-9_3
(#paywalled)

Update. In the field of medical informatics, "only 25% (8/32) of the EiCs [editors in chief]… are female, while females only represent 32.7% (426/1303) of the EB [editorial board] members across journals."
https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/SHTI240364

Update. "Our results indicate that the ratio of female to male authors keeps increasing steadily across disciplines. The increases are field-neutral —in other words, they are not bigger, for example, in [STEM fields]…The increases are… decelerating in time, which could suggest that the equilibrium of female to male authors may be plateauing. Finally, although the within-field gender gap is decreasing, it actually widened between fields."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08944393241270633

Update. New study: "With roughly the same number of men and women in the world, we should expect this [#gender] gap to close in an equal society. But what we see in reality is a persistent gap in #physics over time."

* Summary
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-gender-gap-physics-stable-century.html

* Primary source with proposed explanation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-024-01799-z

Update. The Journal of Cardiac Failure switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review to increase the number of its women authors. Three years later it reports the results.
https://onlinejcf.com/article/S1071-9164(24)00378-6/abstract
(#paywalled)

"The proportion of women first authors increased from 24% in Era 1 to 34% in Era 2 to 39% in Era 3 while the percentage of women authors serving in a senior authorship role remained fairly stable over time around 21-22%."

Update. New study: "Female-led [scientific] teams generate more novel and disruptive ideas. However, they tend to produce articles with fewer scientific impact [sic] compared to their male-led counterparts…Further analysis indicates that this gender bias intensifies in later career stages and with larger team sizes."
https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00335/124962/Female-led-teams-produce-more-innovative-ideas-yet

Update. At the Technische Universität Ilmenau, "#gender has a negative influence on the publication frequency but not on the citation rate."
https://tarupublications.com/doi/10.47974/CJSIM-2024-0019

Update. In #EasternEurope "the highest percentage of female authored articles was in journals from #Slovenia (mean = 47.28%) and a lowest in journals from #Azerbaijan (mean = 29.30%)."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10737547
(#paywalled)

#gender

Update. "[The] metric called field-weighted citation impact (#FWCI)…compares citations received by individuals or groups with the average from similar papers in the field. In 2022, male materials scientists based in #India had a 10% higher FWCI than women working in the country. The #gender gap is not so pronounced within other fields."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04004-x

Update. #AI / #LLMs "tend to recommend literature with greater citation counts, later publication date, and larger author teams. Yet, in scholar recommendation tasks, there is no evidence that LLMs disproportionately recommend male, white, or developed-country authors, contrasting with patterns of known human biases."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00367

Update. The _Emergency Medicine Journal_ commits to reporting #clinicaltrial data broken down by #sex and #gender.
https://emj.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/06/emermed-2024-214743

"Despite…widely reported gender disparities [in medical risks and conditions], we still rarely see the results of clinical trials disaggregated by sex…We must begin now with better data, better approaches to analysis and better reporting…We know that authors don’t always read the not-so-fine print in our guidance, so it will be on us as editors to remind authors to report sex-disaggregated results when possible. We welcome readers to hold us to our word, assuring that this happens."

Update. "The within-discipline differences [of h-index] by #gender are smallest in the humanities and STEM fields and largest in the medical field."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316913

Update. New study: "Among nearly 35,000 biological scientists who authored their first paper in 2000, women were more likely than men to have stopped publishing after 5, 10 or 20 years. The size of this #gender gap varies between disciplines."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00021-6
(#paywalled)

Update. There are many studies of #gender bias in academic publishing. Having tracked them for years in this Mastodon thread (and an earlier Twitter thread), I agree with this new study that "methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies." The authors propose a standardized "framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures." This "will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18129

Update. In the field of public administration, "when women are first authors, the research team is more likely to contain other women and while women are increasingly represented in coauthorship structures, men-only groups of coauthors continue to persist."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.13923

Update. "Mixed-gender teams are more likely to face #retractions than all-male or all-female teams, while individual authors are less prone to retractions…Male-led publications are often retracted for serious ethical violations, such as data falsification and plagiarism, while female-led publications primarily face procedural errors and updates in rapidly evolving fields. Promoting women to positions of responsibility in mix-collaborations may not only advances gender equity but also the accuracy of the scientific record."
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00353

#Gender #ScholComm

Update. New study: In the social sciences, "male editors-in-chief outnumber females across most fields (66.67%), countries (76.60%), and affiliations (63.16%)."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317931

#Gender #ScholComm

Update. From a _Nature_ editorial.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00891-w

"It’s no secret that women’s participation in research is not reflected in the literature on a par with men’s, and that other #gender identities are all but invisible. The gap is particularly wide in some disciplines, notably the physical sciences…as well as at more-senior levels. But are some fields making more progress than others? If so, what can be learnt from them…? These are some of the questions that reporters and data analysts from Nature Index set out to investigate in their project, Nature Index Author Gender Ratio, launched in 2024. This week, they report some early results."