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.

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

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

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

Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields

Gender bias undermines evidence on gender and health

Bias against research on gender bias

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

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

“Broad” Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

Swimming against the tide: Gender bias in the physics classroom

Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions

Gender disparities in UK research publishing: Differences between fields, methods and topics

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

Gender Equality in STEM: Exploring Self-Efficacy Through Gender Awareness

“Invisible Sportswomen 2.0”—Digging Deeper Into Gender Bias in Sport and Exercise Science Research: Author Gender, Editorial Board Gender, and Research Quality

Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters

Gender Inequities Throughout STEM: Compared to Men, Women with Significantly Higher Grades Drop STEM Majors

The harm hypothesis: How perceived harm to women shapes reactions to research on sex differences

Gender bias might be working at level of whole disciplines