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.

Women at Work: Pathways from Gender Stereotypes to Gender Bias and Discrimination

“Why Can’t I Become a Manager?”—A Systematic Review of Gender Stereotypes and Organizational Discrimination

A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making.

Metaphors Describing the Gendered Organization in the Career Advancement of Women: An Integrative Review

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

Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework

How Are We Doing? An Examination of Gender Representation in Industrial and Organizational (I-O) Psychology

Gendered perceptions of career advancement barriers: Unveiling challenges to female corporate leadership development

Gender Stereotypes and Their Impact on Women’s Career Progressions from a Managerial Perspective

Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context

Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM

Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters

Gender bias in AI-based decision-making systems: a systematic literature review

Are the Processes Underlying Discrimination the Same for Women and Men? A Critical Review of Congruity Models of Gender Discrimination

An Underexamined Inequality

Perpetuating Inequality: Junior Women Do Not See Queen Bee Behavior as Negative but Are Nonetheless Negatively Affected by It

Examining the Impact of Gender Discriminatory Practices on Women’s Development and Progression at Work

Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review

Breaking the glass ceiling: For one and all?