Article

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: 3.53). 12/2012; 7(12):e51332. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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

Full-text

Available from: Xiao Han T. Zeng, Jan 14, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
74 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reputation is an important social construct in science, enabling informed quality assessments of both publications and careers in the absence of complete systemic information. However, the relation between reputation and career growth remains poorly understood, despite the rapid growth of quantitative methods developed for research evaluation. We develop an original framework for measuring how citation paths are influenced by two distinct factors -- the scientific merit of each individual paper versus the reputation of its authors within the scientific community. To estimate their relative strength, we perform a longitudinal analysis of publication data for 450 leading scientists and find a citation crossover $c_{\times}$ which distinguishes the strength of the reputation effect. For papers with citations $c$ below $c_{\times}$, the author reputation dominates the citation rate; if $c\geq c_{\times}$ then the paper quality dominates the citation rate. Hence, papers may gain a significant early citation advantage if coauthored by authors already having high reputations in the scientific community. Concomitant to this reputation mechanism, we observe for top scientists a non-decreasing growth in both publications and citations, a pattern which reflects the amplifying role of social processes. As quantitative measures become increasingly common in the evaluation of scientific careers, we show that it is important to account for author reputation when estimating the intrinsic quality of research. Furthermore, our results also indicate a strong role played by reputation in the mentor matching process within academic institutions, in the effectiveness of double blinding in peer-review, and in other generic reputation systems.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10/2013; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1323111111 · 9.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Correctly assessing a scientist's past research impact and potential for future impact is key in recruitment decisions and other evaluation processes. While a candidate's future impact is the main concern for these decisions, most measures only quantify the impact of previous work. Recently, it has been argued that linear regression models are capable of predicting a scientist's future impact. By applying that future impact model to 762 careers drawn from three disciplines: physics, biology, and mathematics, we identify a number of subtle, but critical, flaws in current models. Specifically, cumulative non-decreasing measures like the h-index contain intrinsic autocorrelation, resulting in significant overestimation of their "predictive power". Moreover, the predictive power of these models depend heavily upon scientists' career age, producing least accurate estimates for young researchers. Our results place in doubt the suitability of such models, and indicate further investigation is required before they can be used in recruiting decisions.
    Scientific Reports 10/2013; 3:3052. DOI:10.1038/srep03052 · 5.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Results from a survey on faculty attitudes towards the teaching and research roles are presented. Attention is given to: (i) the perceived value of teaching (and teaching achievements) relative to research, (ii) approaches for research and teaching integration, (iii) the satisfaction gained from typical work tasks, and (iv) the importance of various work-life factors. Factors such as academic freedom, an intellectual work environment, flexible work hours, inspirational colleagues, and work diversity are found to be highly valued. Support from peers and colleagues is also seen as a key in learning to manage the different academic roles. A relatively low value is attributed to teaching achievements. Likewise, there is often little utilisation of teaching opportunities to support research work (other than senior-year research projects). Female faculty were found to give marginally a higher importance to teaching recognition and collaborative teaching opportunities. Based on the findings, general recommendations for supporting the teaching researcher are presented.
    European Journal of Engineering Education 03/2014; 39(4). DOI:10.1080/03043797.2014.895702