Awards named after male scientists rarely given to women

Laura Hiscott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/37/01/16

2024-01-01

Physics World

Abstract:The gender of the person an award is named after can have a big impact on who is likely to receive it, finds a new study, which notes that men win almost 90% of awards named after male scientists.

physics, multidisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A sustainability science prize—reserved, so far, for men

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads7685

IF: 56.9

2024-09-01

Science

Abstract:Does new Frontiers Planet Prize—with its millions—perpetuate old inequities?

multidisciplinary sciences
Gender bias in Nobel prizes

Per Lunnemann,Mogens H. Jensen,Liselotte Jauffred

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3

2019-05-07

Palgrave Communications

Abstract:Strikingly few Nobel laureates within medicine, natural and social sciences are women. It is obvious that there are fewer women researchers within these fields, but does this still fully account for the low number of female Nobel laureates? We examine whether women are awarded the Nobel Prizes less often than the gender ratio suggests. Based on historical data across four scientific fields and a Bayesian hierarchical model, we quantify any possible bias. The model reveals, with exceedingly large confidence, that indeed women are strongly under-represented among Nobel laureates across all disciplines examined.

English Else
Just 5 women have won a top maths prize in the past 90 years

Sarah Wild

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00501-1

IF: 64.8

2024-02-17

Nature

Abstract:Prestigious awards such as the Fields Medal, Abel Prize and Breakthrough Prize have been awarded predominantly to men. Prestigious awards such as the Fields Medal, Abel Prize and Breakthrough Prize have been awarded predominantly to men.

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

Moaraj Hasan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03309

2018-01-30

Physics Education

Abstract:In this study, headcounts of all personnel in Nobel Prize-winning labs were collected and sorted by gender. These results are used to determine gender representation of graduate students in elite institutions on the pipeline towards higher academic positions. Larger gender disparities are seen in physics and physical chemistry labs and are reduced in biologically focused labs. These differences are greater in Nobel Prize-winning institutions when compared to the USA and EU averages. The gender bias in hiring during the transition between postdoctoral fellow and junior faculty seems to be the bottleneck for women; exacerbated by family formation. Women who surpass this hurdle achieve tenure at the same rate and do not perform any worse than men in such fields. Reduced participation in mathematically intensive fields can also be traced to propensities of girls preferences to deviate from them as early as kindergarten. As such, gender disparity may not be due to recalcitrant pernicious attitudes of individuals towards women. Accumulated advantages such as societal expectation, asymmetric teaching efforts and acceptance of men to enter certain fields, over decades, may put men in more favourable positions while competing for placement in prestigious labs. However, these factors are sensitive to cultural shifts and show generational effects indicating the possibility of equality facilitated by sociocultural shifts in expectation for young women.
Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

John P. A. Ioannidis,Kevin W. Boyack,Thomas A. Collins,Jeroen Baas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002385

IF: 9.8

2023-11-21

PLoS Biology

Abstract:We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Corinne A. Moss-Racusin,John F. Dovidio,Victoria L. Brescoll,Mark J. Graham,Jo Handelsman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

IF: 11.1

2012-09-17

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study ( n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.
Know Their Name: An Anthology of Great Women in the Shadows

Janan Arslan,Sepinoud Azimi,Lina Sami,Farah Ajili,Daniela Domingues,Deniz Akpinar,Læke Vinther Christiansen,Violetta Zujovic,Kurt K. Benke

2024-10-24

Abstract:There has been a long history of women innovators producing outstanding contributions to society and public benefit yet having their work passed over or sidelined or attributed to male colleagues. This phenomenon has been coined the Matilda Effect. The amendments to the record of human achievements are now taking place, with an increasing pace in recent times due to greater social enlightenment and awareness and the interest in social justice. However, there remains a gap that must be addressed. In this article, we demonstrate the disparity in scientific recognition for a handful of case studies through search data collected via Google Trends and plotted as time-series figures and choropleth maps. Search trends reflect a noticeable divergence between recognition of female and male innovators. However, we note that in more well-known cases of the Matilda Effect, such as the historical account of Rosalind Franklin vs. James Watson and Francis Crick, the differences become less pronounced, emphasizing the importance of publicizing recognition. In response to this revelation, this article presents the stories of several women innovators and their great achievements. We identify the truth behind several discoveries and inventions, while revealing the full nature of this historical problem of social exclusion.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition

Menno H. Schellekens,Floris Holstege,Taha Yasseri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.06310

2019-04-16

Abstract:Different kinds of "gender gap" have been reported in different walks of the scientific life, almost always favouring male scientists over females. In this work, for the first time, we present a large-scale empirical analysis to ask whether female scientists with the same level of scientific accomplishment are as likely as males to be recognised. We particularly focus on Wikipedia, the open online encyclopedia that its open nature allows us to have a proxy of community recognition. We calculate the probability of appearing on Wikipedia as a scientist for both male and female scholars in three different fields. We find that women in Physics, Economics and Philosophy are considerable less likely than men to be recognised on Wikipedia across all levels of achievement.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society,Social and Information Networks,Physics and Society
Gender gaps at the academies

David Card,Stefano DellaVigna,Patricia Funk,Nagore Iriberri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212421120

2023-01-24

Abstract:Historically, a large majority of newly elected members of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS) were men. Within the past two decades, however, that situation has changed, and in the last 3 y, women made up about 40% of the new members in both academies. We build lists of active scholars from publications in the top journals in three fields-psychology, mathematics, and economics-and develop a series of models to compare changes in the probability of selection of women as members of the NAS and AAAS from the 1960s to today, controlling for publications and citations. In the early years of our sample, women were less likely to be selected as members than men with similar records. By the 1990s, the selection process at both academies was approximately gender neutral, conditional on publications and citations. In the past 20 y, however, a positive preference for female members has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are 3 to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the AAAS and NAS than men with similar publication and citation records. The positive preference for women may be in part a reflection of concerns that women face higher barriers to publishing in top journals and may receive less credit for their work.
Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Natalie R Davidson,Casey S Greene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.84855

IF: 7.7

2024-05-30

eLife

Abstract:Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the public's view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors' names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.

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

Kit Neikirk,Zer Vue,Neng Vue,Taylor Barongan,Chia Vang,Heather K. Beasley,Andrea G. Marshall,Annet Kirabo,Celestine N. Wanajalla,Nathan Smith,Derrick Morton,Haysetta D. Shuler,Antentor Hinton Jr.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.31157

2024-01-17

Journal of Cellular Physiology

Abstract:The Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology is one of the most prestigious prizes in the world. Yet, do the winners of it reflect the diversity of science? Neikirk et al. show a relative lack of diversity in Nobel Prize winners relative to the overall field and offer suggestions to improve equity in awards and reporting metrics. Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to numerous individuals for their outstanding contributions. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Nobel Prize recipients, focusing on gender, race, and nationality. We observe that an alarming disparity emerges when we examine the underrepresentation of Black scientists among Nobel laureates. Furthermore, trends in nationalities show how Americans make up the majority of Nobel Prize winners, while there is a noticeable lack of gender and racial minority winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Together, this highlights the importance of diversity and inclusion in scientific achievement. We offer suggestions and techniques, including funding opportunities and expanding nominators, to improve the gender, racial, and geographical diversity of Nobel Prizes.

cell biology,physiology
Does a Gender-Neutral Name Associate with the Research Impact of a Scientist?

Ning Zhang,Guangye He,Dongbo Shi,Zhenyue Zhao,Jiang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101251

IF: 3.7

2022-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:Women have long suffered in both academia and industry from lower status, underrepresentation, unequal treatment, and other challenges based on gender. This paper explores whether a gender-neutral name is associated with the research impact of a scientist by examining three years of citations. The data for this study are derived from publications indexed in ISI's Web of Science (WoS) database from 2009 to 2015. By assigning a name neutralization index score to each author, we investigate the relationship between the neutralization index and citations and find the following results: (1) generally, the more neutral the name, the more citations the publications received; (2) the neutral effect was more pronounced for authors with feminine names than for authors with masculine names.
Women are better than men at science job interviews

Chris Woolston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03107-9

IF: 64.8

2024-10-10

Nature

Abstract:The number of job applications and identifying as a woman have been determined as success factors for securing biological-science job offers. The number of job applications and identifying as a woman have been determined as success factors for securing biological-science job offers.

multidisciplinary sciences
"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Malgorzata Lagisz,Joanna Rutkowska,Upama Aich,Robert M Ross,Manuela S Santana,Joshua Wang,Nina Trubanová,Matthew J Page,Andrew Adrian Yu Pua,Yefeng Yang,Bawan Amin,April Robin Martinig,Adrian Barnett,Aswathi Surendran,Ju Zhang,David N Borg,Jafsia Elisee,James G Wrightson,Shinichi Nakagawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002715

2024-07-23

Abstract:Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But do awards incentivize greater transparency, inclusivity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions were brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups were not explicitly encouraged, and concepts that align with Open Science were almost absent from the assessment criteria. At the same time, 10% of awards, especially the recently established ones, tended to use article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Overall, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition. We provide concrete and implementable recommendations for scientific awards to improve the scientific recognition system and incentives for better scientific practice.
Differential correction of gender imbalance for top-cited scientists across scientific subfields over time

Ioannidis,J.,Boyack,K.,Collins,T. A.,Baas,J.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.25.542328

2023-05-27

bioRxiv

Abstract:We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992-2001, 2002-2011, post-2011). Using NamSor we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men, and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had >=50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had >=30% women, and 3 subfields had =<10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the USA) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

English Else
Change of guard for Australian science

Carina Dennis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/455716a

IF: 64.8

2008-10-01

Nature

Abstract:Women in top two science posts.

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

Michael H. K. Bendels,Ruth Müller,Doerthe Brueggmann,David A. Groneberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136

IF: 3.7

2018-01-02

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality research by analyzing the representation of female authorships in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016).METHODS: Based on the Gendermetrics platform, 293,557 research articles from 54 journals listed in the Nature Index were considered covering the categories Life Science, Multidisciplinary, Earth & Environmental and Chemistry. The core method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.RESULTS: 29.8% of all authorships and 33.1% of the first, 31.8% of the co- and 18.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.19 (CI: 1.18-1.20) for first, 1.35 (CI: 1.34-1.36) for co- and 0.47 (CI: 0.46-0.48) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = -0.42). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. More specifically, a large negative correlation between the 5-Year-Impact-Factor of a journal and the female representation at prestigious authorships was revealed (r(52) = -.63, P < .001). Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.0% female authors are responsible for 29.8% of all authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 2 articles per author. Articles with female key authors are less frequently cited than articles with male key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Distinct differences at the journal, journal category, continent and country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecast a very slow harmonization of authorships odds between the two genders.

multidisciplinary sciences
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Karen B. Schmaling,Stephen A. Gallo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3

2023-05-03

Research Integrity and Peer Review

Abstract:Abstract Background Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women’s lesser representation in the sciences. This study’s objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes. Methods The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias. Results The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders’ reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I 2 = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I 2 = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts ( g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I 2 = 100%). Conclusions The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.
Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients

Maheshver Shunmugam,Seth Friesen,Sharon Kipfer,Adam Klonowski,Harleen K. Hehar,Lucy Y. Lei,Charlotte J. Yong-Hing,Faisal Khosa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110096

IF: 2.42

2024-01-31

Clinical Imaging

Abstract:Purpose Women remain underrepresented in radiology and there is a paucity of literature examining the recognition of their professional contributions to the discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine the gender distribution of award winners across all North American radiology societies. Methods The gender distribution of 1923 award recipients from 21 North American radiology societies between 1960 and 2021 was examined. Awards were divided into four categories: leadership, teaching, contribution to radiology, and promising new/young societal member. Primary outcome was the total proportion of awards received by gender. All data was compared to the gender distribution of working radiologists in North America. Results A total of 1923 award recipients were identified between 1960 and 2021. Seventy-nine percent of award recipients were men ( n = 1527) and 21 % were women ( n = 396). As of 1970, the proportion of women award recipients increased 0.55 % ± 0.07 % each year. The proportion of women receiving radiological awards after 2018 is equal to or surpassing the percentage of women radiologists. Women received 36.4 % of leadership, 33.6 % of promising new member, 30.1 % of teaching, and 14.4 % of lifetime contribution awards. Conclusions In the last five years, the proportion of women receiving awards was equal to or greater than the proportion of women radiologists. Women received more leadership awards and fewer lifetime contributor awards compared to men.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging

Awards named after male scientists rarely given to women

A sustainability science prize—reserved, so far, for men

Gender bias in Nobel prizes

Just 5 women have won a top maths prize in the past 90 years

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

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

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Know Their Name: An Anthology of Great Women in the Shadows

Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition

Gender gaps at the academies

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

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

Does a Gender-Neutral Name Associate with the Research Impact of a Scientist?

Women are better than men at science job interviews

"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Differential correction of gender imbalance for top-cited scientists across scientific subfields over time

Change of guard for Australian science

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

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gender distribution of North American professional radiology society award recipients