Figure 2 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Authorship status by gender in Demography. Unit of analysis is the authorship rather than the individual publication
Source publication
Demography, the official journal of the Population Association of America, has been given the highest rating among demographic journals by the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Our aim here is to investigate the development of research subfields and female authorship in Demography over the last 50 years. We find that female authorship in Demog...
Similar publications
The combination of new-generation information technology and manufacturing technology has resulted in major and profound impact on future development paradigm of manufacturing. It is challenging for existing methods to conduct a multidimensional trend exploration related to machine tool domain, which is the basis of virtually everything in manufact...
Citations
... Earlier quan ti ta tive assess ments of changes in demog ra phy's land scape in terms of top ics, num ber, and gen der com po si tion of authors of papers published in demogra phy's key intel lec tual out lets have relied on con tent ana ly ses of decades of articles grouped into predefined and well-rec og nized sub fields (e.g., mor tal ity, fer til ity, fam ily, migra tion, meth ods) according to cod ing schemes that use a mod i fied version of the field's con ven tional sub ject head ings (Teachman et al. 1993) or assign papers to sub ject areas based on lists of key words (Krapf et al. 2016). Other ana ly ses have relied on large demog ra phy paper corpuses and com pu ta tional modes of tex tual anal y sis, such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)-com monly described as topic mod el ing-that ascribe to top ics com mon vocab u lar ies shared by papers and track the prev a lence of a prespecified num ber of top ics across jour nals or fields (e.g., Merchant 2017;Mills and Rahal 2021). ...
Much of what we know about the intellectual landscape of anglophone demography comes from two sources: subjective narratives authored by leaders in the field, whose reviews and observations are derived from their research experience and field-specific knowledge; and professional histories covering the field's foundational controversies, which tend to focus on individuals, institutions, and influence. Here we use bibliographic information from all articles published in the three leading journals of anglophone demography-Demography, Population Studies, and Population and Development Review-to survey the changing contours of anglophone demography's key research areas over the past 70 years. We characterize the field of demography by applying a two-pronged, data-grounded approach from the sociology of science. The first uses natural language processing that lets the substance of the field emerge from the contents of publication records and applies social network analyses to identify groups of papers that talk about the same thing. The second uses bibliometric tools to capture the "conversations" of demography with other disciplines. Our goals are to (1) identify the primary topics of demography since the discipline first gained prominence as an organized field; (2) assess changes in the field's intellectual cohesion and the topical areas that have grown or shrunk; and (3) examine how demographers place their work in relationship to other disciplines, the visibility and influence of demographic research in the broader scientific literature, and the cross-disciplinary translational reach of demographic research. Results provide a dynamic view of the field's scientific development in the second half of the twentieth century and the first two decades of the twenty-first century.
... The most likely gender of each active researcher included in the dataset was inferred from the first names of the researcher using the genderizeR package in R (Wais, 2006). Studies of big bibliometric data analysis typically rely on various gender estimation algorithms (Krapf et al., 2016). However, since these algorithms were initially developed for marketing rather than for research purposes, they are more accurate when applied to certain populations than to others. ...
This study assesses the initial effects of the 2016 Brexit referendum on the mobility of academic scholars to and from the United Kingdom (UK). We leverage bibliometric data from millions of Scopus publications to infer changes in the countries of residence of published researchers by the changes in their institutional affiliations over time. We focus on a selected sample of active researchers whose movements are traceable for every year between 2013 and 2019, and measure the changes in their international migration patterns. While we do not observe a brain drain following Brexit, we find evidence that the mobility patterns of scholars began to change following the referendum. Among the active researchers in our sample, we find that their probability of leaving the UK increased by approximately 86% if their academic origin (country of first publication) was an EU country. For scholars with a UK academic origin, we observe that after Brexit, their probability of leaving the UK decreased by approximately 14%, and their probability of moving (back) to the UK increased by around 65%. Our analysis points to a compositional change in the academic origins of the researchers entering and leaving the UK as one of the first impacts of Brexit on the UK and EU academic workforce.
... Otros estudios revelan un incremento en la condición de coautoría (Fishman, Williams, Goodman y Ross, 2017;Mimouni et al., 2016) que varía entre 50.3 % y 55.6 % en investigadoras de ciencias de la salud (Giner-Soriano et al., 2019). Por otro lado, en los últimos 50 años en ciencias sociales la autoría femenina aumentó en el período 2010-2014, pues más del 40 % de las publicaciones estuvo a cargo de mujeres (Krapf, Kreyenfeld y Wolf, 2016). No obstante, el reporte y liderazgo de mujeres en publicaciones científicas es aún pequeño (Centeno-Leguía, Morales-Concha, Lopez y Mejia, 2020). ...
... No obstante, un estudio en el campo de la medicina peruana da cuenta de que la presencia de mujeres con primera autoría y autoría de correspondencia se encuentra en aumento en comparación con décadas pasadas, situación que aún no llega a consolidarse en la investigación científica (Centeno-Leguía et al., 2020). Un patrón similar ocurre en las ciencias sociales, en las que se encuentra que en los últimos 50 años la autoría femenina ha aumentado, porque más del 40 % de las publicaciones están a cargo de mujeres (Krapf et al., 2016). De hecho, recientes investigaciones revelan que las mujeres ocupan la posición de primera autoría en 110 de 173 artículos, equivalente al 64 % de la producción científica revisada (Barboza-Palomino et al., 2021) y aparecen como autoras de correspondencia en 33 de 81 documentos, equivalente al 40 % (Gallegos et al., 2020). ...
La inequidad de género no es ajena a la ciencia, en la que la infrarrepresentación de la mujer en el ámbito académico resulta preocupante. Es una problemática que requiere un estudio profundo, en especial en carreras con altos porcentajes de mujeres como psicología y en regiones como Latinoamérica donde existe una considerable proporción de psicólogas científicas. La presente investigación tiene como objetivo caracterizar la producción de investigadoras en psicología por tipo de investigación, área de aplicación, liderazgo y temática. Se analizaron un total de 149 artículos publicados por 14 investigadoras que se encuentran en el Registro Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología y de Innovación Tecno-lógica de Perú (RENACYT). Se excluyeron cuatro psicólogas por no contar con producción científica declarada y documentos repetidos, que no correspondían con un documento científico como resúmenes de congresos, artículos en revistas no indizadas y artículos inubicables en alguna base de datos; todo esto fue hecho siguiendo las recomendaciones de PRISMA. Los resultados señalan una mayor cantidad de coautorías (60.4 %), estudios con diseños empíricos (79.2 %), de objetivo asociativo (36.2 %), estrategia correlacional (21.5 %) y una mayor cantidad de artículos en el subcampo clínico y de la salud (38.9 %), así como en el educativo (38.3 %). Con respecto a la temática, aparecen con mayor frecuencia trastornos clínicos (23.5 %) y procesos cognitivos (16.8 %). Se concluye que las psicólogas investigadoras peruanas realizan estudios empíricos con un menor predominio de estudios teóricos manipulativos, cuasi experimentales o caso único y en mayor medida estudios en el área clínica y de la salud con predominio en trastornos clínicos.
... The first study analysed published articles from 1964-1991 (Teachman et al. 1993). More than two decades later, the successive study by Krapf et al. (2016) extended the analysis to published articles between 1964 and 2014 with a particular focus on gender differences in authorship by demographic subfields and by order of authors. ...
... The follow-up study by Krapf et al. (2016) focused specifically on gender disparities in publication patterns in Demography over the last 50 years. They found no particular female disadvantages in authorship practices, where women were as equally likely as men to have been either the single author of a paper or the first author in a multi-authored paper. ...
... Although it was concluded that Demography is a gender-equal journal, Krapf et al. (2016) pointed out that there are substantial gender differences in subfields of publications, with women being more likely to publish in 'family and household' and less so in the 'mortality and health', 'migration' and 'data and methods' categories. ...
... Teachman et al. (1993) analysed changes in demographic subfields using articles from the journal published between 1964 and 1991. Krapf et al. (2016) extended the analysis to published articles between 1964 and 2014 with a particular focus on gender differences in authorship by demographic subfields and by order of authors. ...
Studies of collaborative networks of demographers are relatively scarce. Similar studies in other social sciences provide insight into scholarly trends of both the fields and characteristics of their successful scientists. Exploiting a unique database of metadata for papers presented at six European Population Conferences, this report explores factors explaining research collaboration among demographers. We find that (1) collaboration among demographers has increased over the past 10 years, however, among co-authored papers, collaboration across institutions remains relatively unchanged over the period, (2) papers based on core demographic subfields such as fertility, mortality, migration and data and methods are more likely to involve multiple authors and (3) multiple author teams that are all female are less likely to co-author with colleagues in different institutions. Potential explanations for these results are discussed alongside comparisons with similar studies of collaboration networks in other related social sciences.
... Según un estudio realizado en Estados Unidos que evaluó la brecha de género en las publicaciones realizadas en el área quirúrgica, se encontró que las mujeres preferirían realizar otras actividades, tales como la docencia y el desempeño de roles en el servicio hospitalario 16 . Sin embargo, en otros ámbitos, como las ciencias sociales, el patrón no es necesariamente el mismo, ya que el estudio de Krapf et al. 17 demostró que en los últimos 50 años la autoría femenina había aumentado, reportándose que entre los años 2010 y 2014 más del 40% de autores que publicaron fueron mujeres. ...
Objective: To characterise and determine factors associated with the first authorship and author for correspondence of women who published in Peruvian journals indexed in SciELO between 2010 and 2015. Methodology: Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of secondary data. All the scientific publications had at least one female author, were evaluated in the 9 Peruvian journals indexed to the SciELO database between 2010 and 2015. The characteristics of the article, authorship and filiation were evaluated. Descriptive and analytical statistics were obtained. Results: Of the 795 scientific publications that had at least one female author, 41% (324) and 35% (253) had a woman as the first author or corresponding author, respectively. The journal that had publications with the largest female participation was the National Institute of Health (153). As regards the year of publication, the percentages of women as the first (R2 = 0) or corresponding author (R2 < .01) did not vary. When performing the bivariate analysis, there was a lower frequency of first authors reporting cases (PR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.78), and short originals (PR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.24-0.90). First authors were more frequent (RP: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.11-2.30) in the hereditary medical journal, and the stomatology journal had a higher frequency of female first authors (RP: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.31-3.35) and corresponding authors (RP: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.30-3.56). Conclusion: The data and leadership of women in Peruvian scientific publications is still a minority and is stagnant in time. For this reason, collaboration and training networks must be created that are more inclusive with women, in order to support and help sustain its growth.
... The second collector (D.F.M.) used a validated name disambiguation procedure. 25 Author names were extracted from Web of Science and cross-matched with the gender assignment software SexMachine. 26 The system uses first names and associated countries to assign a likely gender. ...
Importance
Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research.
Objectives
To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research.
Design, Setting, and Participants
For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article.
Results
Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching.
Conclusions and Relevance
Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.
This study assesses the initial effects of the 2016 Brexit referendum on the mobility of academic scholars to and from the United Kingdom (UK). We leverage bibliometric data from millions of Scopus publications to infer changes in the countries of residence of published researchers by the changes in their institutional affiliations over time. We focus on a selected sample of active and internationally mobile researchers whose movements are traceable for every year between 2013 and 2019 and measure the changes in their migration patterns. Although we do not observe a brain drain following Brexit, we find evidence that scholars’ mobility patterns changed after Brexit. Among the active researchers in our sample, their probability of leaving the UK increased by approximately 86% if their academic origin (country of first publication) was an EU country. For scholars with a UK academic origin, their post-Brexit probability of leaving the UK decreased by approximately 14%, and their probability of moving (back) to the UK increased by roughly 65%. Our analysis points to a compositional change in the academic origins of the researchers entering and leaving the UK as one of the first impacts of Brexit on the UK and EU academic workforce.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag analysiert die Publikationspraxis der Zeitschrift für Soziologie und der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie unter Berücksichtigung geschlechtstypischer Entwicklungen seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre. Hintergrund ist die Veränderung des sozialwissenschaftlichen Publizierens, die parallel zu einer Zunahme des Frauenanteils in den Sozialwissenschaften stattgefunden hat. Ausgehend von Erklärungen der geschlechtsspezifischen Segregation in Organisationen beschreiben wir auf Basis eines selbst erstellten Datensatzes die Teilhabe von Frauen an der Publikation von Forschungsaufsätzen und Rezensionen sowie an Begutachtungen und Herausgebergremien. Trotz erheblicher Fortschritte in der Erhöhung ihrer Sichtbarkeit sind Frauen noch nicht entsprechend ihrem erwartbaren Anteil in allen Funktionsgruppen vertreten. Als Herausgeberinnen und als Autorinnen von Forschungsbeiträgen haben sie am stärksten aufgeholt, wobei sich bei letzteren Kooperationen mit Männern begünstigend ausgewirkt haben.
Background:
Despite initiatives to promote equal enrollment of human subjects in clinical trials, females continue to be underrepresented. The goal of this work is to determine if female enrollment in human clinical trials published in three high-impact journals from 2015 to 2019 is correlated with gender of first and/or senior authors.
Methods:
Clinical trials published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, were reviewed. Trials were excluded for ongoing enrollment, sex-specific disease research, or author name without gender assignment. One-sample χ2 pairwise comparisons and two-tailed proportion tests on the proportion of females between gender author pairings were done overall and for each subset analysis.
Results:
1,427 articles enrolled a total of 2,104,509 females and 2,616,981 males (44.6% vs. 55.4%, p ≤ 0.0001) in clinical trials. Overall, more females were enrolled if both first and senior authors were female (51.7% vs. 48.3%, p ≤ 0.0001). Proportion of females enrolled decreased with the following first and senior author pairings: female-male (48.9%), male-female (48.6%), and male-male (40.5%, p ≤ 0.0001 compared to female-female authorship). Greater female enrollment in clinical trials with female-female compared to male-male authorship persisted in subset analyses by funding source, phase, randomization for study participants, drug and/or device trial, and geographic location. Female enrollment was higher in 3 surgical specialties: neurosurgery (all authors: 52%, p ≤ 0.01), ophthalmology (all authors: 53.6%, p ≤ 0.0001), and surgery (all authors: 54.4%, p ≤ 0.0001). The majority of surgical specialties did not publish trials with female-female authorship but when stratifying by author gender pairing, surgical oncology had the highest female enrollment with female-female authorship (98.4%, p ≤ 0.0001).
Conclusion:
Female authorship of clinical trial publications, specifically having both first and senior authors as female, was correlated with higher female enrollment in clinical trials when compared to male authorship and endured with multiple subset analyses.
