The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact

Departament d'Enginyeria Informàtica i Matemàtiques, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 12/2012; 7(12):e51332. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
Source: PubMed


Many studies demonstrate that there is still a significant gender bias, especially at higher career levels, in many areas including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We investigated field-dependent, gender-specific effects of the selective pressures individuals experience as they pursue a career in academia within seven STEM disciplines. We built a unique database that comprises 437,787 publications authored by 4,292 faculty members at top United States research universities. Our analyses reveal that gender differences in publication rate and impact are discipline-specific. Our results also support two hypotheses. First, the widely-reported lower publication rates of female faculty are correlated with the amount of research resources typically needed in the discipline considered, and thus may be explained by the lower level of institutional support historically received by females. Second, in disciplines where pursuing an academic position incurs greater career risk, female faculty tend to have a greater fraction of higher impact publications than males. Our findings have significant, field-specific, policy implications for achieving diversity at the faculty level within the STEM disciplines.

Download full-text


Available from: Xiao Han T. Zeng, Jan 14, 2015
  • Source
    • "Specifically, we demonstrate that the distribution of the asymptotic number of accumulated citations to publications by a researcher or from a research institution is consistent with a discrete lognormal model [32] [38]. We validate our approach with two datasets acquired from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS): • Manually disambiguated citation data pertaining to researchers at the top United States (U.S.) research institutions across seven disciplines [39]: chemical engineering, chemistry, ecology, industrial engineering, material science, molecular biology, and psychology; • Citation data from the chemistry departments of 106 U.S. institutions classified as " very high research activity " . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: How to quantify the impact of a researcher's or an institution's body of work is a matter of increasing importance to scientists, funding agencies, and hiring committees. The use of bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index or the Journal Impact Factor, have become widespread despite their known limitations. We argue that most existing bibliometric indicators are inconsistent, biased, and, worst of all, susceptible to manipulation. Here, we pursue a principled approach to the development of an indicator to quantify the scientific impact of both individual researchers and research institutions grounded on the functional form of the distribution of the asymptotic number of citations. We validate our approach using the publication records of 1,283 researchers from seven scientific and engineering disciplines and the chemistry departments at the 106 U.S. research institutions classified as "very high research activity". Our approach has three distinct advantages. First, it accurately captures the overall scientific impact of researchers at all career stages, as measured by asymptotic citation counts. Second, unlike other measures, our indicator is resistant to manipulation and rewards publication quality over quantity. Third, our approach captures the time-evolution of the scientific impact of research institutions.
    PLoS ONE 11/2015; 10(11). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0143108 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Peer reviewers strive to exercise impartial judgment to determine what information warrants publication, but objectivity may be hard to consistently achieve (Hojat et al. 2003; DeVries et al. 2009; Aarssen 2012; Duch et al. 2012; Heidari and Babor 2013). Single-blind review models have the potential to be problematic when authors are not anonymous because author characteristics may influence reviews (e.g., Blank 1991). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated the possibility of gender differences in outcomes throughout the peer review process of American Fisheries Society (AFS) journals. For each manuscript submitted to four AFS journals between January 2003 and December 2010, we collated information regarding the gender and nationality of authors, gender of associate editor, gender of reviewers, reviewer recommendations, associate editor's decision, and publication status of the manuscript. We used hierarchical linear modeling to test for differences in manuscript decision outcomes associated with author, reviewer, and associate editor gender. Gender differences were present at some but not every stage of the review process and were not equal among the four journals. Although there was a small gender difference in decision outcomes, we found no evidence of bias in editors’ and reviewers’ recommendations. Our results support the conclusion that the current single-blind review system does not result in bias against female authors within AFS journals.
    Fisheries 09/2015; 40(9). DOI:10.1080/03632415.2015.1059824 · 1.25 Impact Factor
    • "The empirical relation between early publications in scientific journals and overall career knowledge production has been explored since the 1970s (see Reskin 1979; Long et al. 1979) and continues to receive attention in the literature (Laurance et al. 2013; Pinheiro et al. 2014). Other studies have also used it as a determinant of research productivity (e.g., Fox 1983), among other determinants such as gender (Duch et al. 2012), age (Costas et al. 2010), networking (Ismail and Rasdi 2007), mobility (Horta 2013), and collaborations (van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011). Although previous studies on the relation between early publications and career knowledge production have contributed to the advancement of knowledge on this subject, they tend to focus solely on research productivity as an output indicator. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyzes the impact that publishing during the period of PhD study has on researchers’ future knowledge production, impact, and co-authorship. The analysis is based on a representative sample of PhDs from all fields of science working in Portugal. For each researcher in the dataset, we compiled a lifetime publication record and respective meta-data retrieved from Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Our results extend the previous literature by showing that those who publish during their PhD have greater research production and productivity, and greater numbers of yearly citations and citations throughout their career compared to those who did not publish during their PhD. Moreover, it is found that those who publish during their PhD are more adept to publish single-authored publications and engage in publications with peers based abroad, thus suggesting both higher levels of scientific autonomy and international collaboration dynamics.
    Research in Higher Education 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11162-015-9380-0 · 1.39 Impact Factor
Show more