Abstract:We synthesized the vast, contradictory scholarly literature on gender bias in academic science from 2000 to 2020. In the most prestigious journals and media outlets, which influence many people’s opinions about sexism, bias is frequently portrayed as an omnipresent factor limiting women’s progress in the tenure-track academy. Claims and counterclaims regarding the presence or absence of sexism span a range of evaluation contexts. Our approach relied on a combination of meta-analysis and analytic dissection. We evaluated the empirical evidence for gender bias in six key contexts in the tenure-track academy: (a) tenure-track hiring, (b) grant funding, (c) teaching ratings, (d) journal acceptances, (e) salaries, and (f) recommendation letters. We also explored the gender gap in a seventh area, journal productivity, because it can moderate bias in other contexts. We focused on these specific domains, in which sexism has most often been alleged to be pervasive, because they represent important types of evaluation, and the extensive research corpus within these domains provides sufficient quantitative data for comprehensive analysis. Contrary to the omnipresent claims of sexism in these domains appearing in top journals and the media, our findings show that tenure-track women are at parity with tenure-track men in three domains (grant funding, journal acceptances, and recommendation letters) and are advantaged over men in a fourth domain (hiring). For teaching ratings and salaries, we found evidence of bias against women; although gender gaps in salary were much smaller than often claimed, they were nevertheless concerning. Even in the four domains in which we failed to find evidence of sexism disadvantaging women, we nevertheless acknowledge that broad societal structural factors may still impede women’s advancement in academic science. Given the substantial resources directed toward reducing gender bias in academic science, it is imperative to develop a clear understanding of when and where such efforts are justified and of how resources can best be directed to mitigate sexism when and where it exists.

Gender bias in Nobel prizes

Gender Disparities in Nobel Prize Winning Labs. A Look into Glass Ceilings, Maternal Walls and Bottlenecks

Disparities in funding for Nobel Prize awards in medicine and physiology across nationalities, races, and gender

Gender Bias in Academic Recruitment? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in the Nordic Region

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry

Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Gender gaps at the academies

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

Bias against research on gender bias

Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

Gender differences in research areas and topics: An analysis of publications in 285 fields

Is there gender bias in nursing research?

Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions

Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields

Gender, Age, and Broader Impact: A Study of Persons, Not Just Authors.