Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price’s, Lotka’s, and Bradford’s laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarssen, L., Tregenza, T., Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Koricheva, J., & Leimu, R. (2008). Bang for your buck: Rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal, 1, 114–119. doi:10.2174/1874213000801010014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478. doi:10.2307/2095801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H. (2001). The norm of universalism in sciences. Social origin and gender of researchers in Denmark. Scientometrics, 50(2), 255–272. doi:10.1023/A:1010521606702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, M., & La Valle, I. (2000). Key factors shaping funding application behaviour among women and men in British higher education institutions. London: Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2003). One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometrics, 57(2), 159–173. doi:10.1023/A:1024181400646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 226–238. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, Á., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Ollé, C. (2010). Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics, 83(1), 93–101. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0025-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschini, A., & Sjögren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from co-authorship patterns. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(2), 325–365. doi:10.1086/510764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 23(3), 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braisher, T. L., Symonds, M. R. E., & Gemmell, N. J. (2005). Publication success in nature and science is not gender dependent. BioEssays, 27(8), 858–859. doi:10.1002/bies.20272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favors increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. T. (1984). Advances in motivation and achievement. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists (pp. 217–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission, European. (2009). The gender challenge in research funding. Assessing the European national scenes. Brussels: Directorate General for Research and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission, European. (2013). She figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation. Brussels: Directorate General for Research and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copenheaver, C. A., Goldbeck, K., & Cherubini, P. (2010). Lack of gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochronologists: What is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Research, 66(2), 127–133. doi:10.3959/2009-10.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico, R., Vermigli, P., & Canetto, S. S. (2011). Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: The case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(3), 175–184. doi:10.1037/a0022570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davo, M. D. C., Vives, C., & Álvarez-Dardet, C. (2003). Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(12), 936–937. doi:10.1136/jech.57.12.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte Consulting. (2013). Researchers’ report 2013. Brussels: European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • DesRoches, C. M., Zinner, D. E., Rao, S. R., Iezzoni, L. I., & Campbell, E. G. (2010). Activities, productivity, and compensation of men and women in the life sciences. Academic Medicine, 85(4), 631–639. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d2b095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewandre, N. (2002). European strategies for promoting women in science. Science, 295(5553), 278–279. doi:10.1126/science.1063487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin, K., Fredman, L., Flegal, K. M., Scott, J. D., & Crawley, B. (1998). Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 260–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (1986). The dual of Bradford’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(4), 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (1990). Applications of the theory of Bradford’s law to the calculation of Leimkuhler’s law and to the completion of bibliographies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(7), 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150. doi:10.1177/0306312705046630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. R., Williams, E. S., & Lundberg, G. D. (1994). Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 139–142. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020065018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, D. K. (2003). Is MIT an exception? Gender pay differences in academic science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(1), 21–26. doi:10.1177/0270467602239767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, D., & Kahn, S. (2006). Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973–2001. In R. B. Freeman & D. Goroff (Eds.), The science and engineering careers in the United States (pp. 163–194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115. doi:10.1023/A:1010512628145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M. T., Fijalkowski, N., Wang, S. K., Maltenfort, M., Zheng, L. L., Ratliff, J., et al. (2014). Gender differences in compensation in academic medicine: The results from four neurological specialties within the University of California Healthcare System. Scientometrics, 100(1), 297–306. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1266-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40(3), 433–451. doi:10.1177/0306312709358472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 84(10), 1440–1446. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6ba00.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagsi, R., DeCastro, R., Griffith, K. A., Rangarajan, S., Churchill, C., Stewart, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2011). Similarities and differences in the career trajectories of male and female career development award recipients. Academic Medicine, 86(11), 1415–1421. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182305aa6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 167–170. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Diepeveen, S., Ni, C., Macaluso, B., Pollitt, A., & Grant, J. (2013a). International comparative performance of mental health research, 1980–2011. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 23(11), 1340–1347. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2013.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013b). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0369-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754–780. doi:10.1177/0891243206293030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F., & Wallon, G. (2007). A persistent problem. EMBO Report, 8(11), 982–987. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n11/suppinfo/7401109_S1.html.

  • Leimkuhler, F. F. (1967). The Bradford distribution. Journal of Documentation, 23(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemoine, W. (1992). Productivity patterns of men and women scientists in Venezuela. Scientometrics, 24(2), 281–295. doi:10.1007/BF02017912.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • LERU (League of European Research Universities). (2012). Women, research and universities: Excellence without gender bias. Leuven: League of European Research Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., & Lewison, G. (2003). The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics, 57(3), 339–353. doi:10.1023/A:1025000600840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G. (2001). The quantity and quality of female researchers: A bibliometric study of Iceland. Scientometrics, 52(1), 29–43. doi:10.1023/A:1012794810883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178. doi:10.1093/sf/71.1.159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, G. A. (2013). The elephant in the room: Multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers. Current Science, 105(4), 443–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1290–1326. doi:10.3102/0034654309334143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160–168. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry, 41(4), 555–564. doi:10.1093/ei/cbg027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleón, E., & Bordons, M. (2006). Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of materials science. Scientometrics, 66(1), 199–218. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0014-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleón, E., Bordons, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2008). The effect of gender on research staff success in life sciences in the Spanish National Research Council. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 213–225. doi:10.3152/095820208x331676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. M., Singell, L. D., & Stater, M. (2006). Two to tango? Gender differences in the decisions to publish and coauthor. Economic Inquiry, 44(1), 153–168. doi:10.1093/ei/cbi065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). Does gender matter in grant peer review? An empirical investigation using the example of the Austrian science fund. Z Psychol, 220(2), 121–129. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka law: A testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(4), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashkova, A. A., Svider, P. F., Chang, C. Y., Diaz, L., Eloy, J. A., & Eloy, J. D. (2013). Gender disparity among US anesthesiologists: Are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity? Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 57(8), 1058–1064. doi:10.1111/aas.12141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prozesky, H. (2008). A career-history analysis of gender differences in publication productivity among South African academics. Science Studies, 21(2), 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puuska, H. M. (2010). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82(2), 419–437. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, M., Gupta, N., & Etzkowitz, H. (2012). Gender effects in research funding. Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L., Hagedorn, L., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F., I. I. I. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446. doi:10.1023/A:1015575616285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrager, S., Bouwkamp, C., & Mundt, M. (2011). Gender and first authorship of papers in family medicine journals 2006–2008. Family Medicine, 43(3), 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22–24. doi:10.1038/495022a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu, R., Rajashekhar, P., Lavin, V. L., Parry, J., Attwood, J., Holdcroft, A., & Sanders, D. S. (2009). The gender imbalance in academic medicine: A study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 102(8), 337–342. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2009.080378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, C., Sorensen, J., Rodriguez, J. J., & Kuanliang, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity among criminal justice and criminology scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnert, G. (1996). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(2), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 891–920. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-5953-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, M. R., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One, 1, e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. W., Fender, B. F., & Burke, K. G. (2006). Unraveling the academic productivity of economists: The opportunity costs of teaching and service. Southern Economic Journal, 72(4), 846–859. doi:10.2307/20111856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tower, G. D., Plummer, J. A., & Ridgewell, B. (2007). Multi-disciplinary study of gender-based research output in the world’s best journals. Journal of Diversity Management, 2(4), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Gender inequality index (GII). Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/gii.

  • Van den Brink, M. (2011). Scouting for talent: Appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 72(12), 2033–2040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waisbren, S. E., Bowles, H., Hasan, T., Zou, K. H., Emans, S. J., Goldberg, C., & Christou, H. (2008). Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. Journal of Women’s Health (Larchmt), 17(2), 207–214. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M. (2001). The gender salary gap in British academia. Applied Economics, 33(13), 1669–1681. doi:10.1080/00036840010014445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. E., & Donnelly, N. (1998). Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC? Medical Journal of Australia, 169(11–12), 623–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, B. M. (2001). Polish women in science: A bibliometric analysis of Polish science and its publications, 1980–1999. Research Evaluation, 10(3), 185–194. doi:10.3152/147154401781776999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wellcome Trust. (1997). Women and peer review an audit of the Wellcome Trust’s decision-making on grants (PRISM report no. 8). London: Wellcome Trust.

  • Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One, 8(7), e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Journal review and gender equality: A critical comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(9), 478–479; author reply 480. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.003.

  • Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 988–991. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870. doi:10.2307/2657505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinovyeva, N., & Bagues, M. (2011). Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. IZA discussion paper no. 5537, Bonn, Germany.

  • Zosuls, K. M., Miller, C. F., Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2011). Gender development research in sex roles: Historical trends and future directions. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 826–842. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9902-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Tahereh Dehdarirad

  2. Department of Public Economy, Political Economy and Spanish Economy, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Anna Villarroya

  3. Department of Methodology of the Behavioural Sciences, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Maite Barrios

Authors
  1. Tahereh Dehdarirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Villarroya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maite Barrios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maite Barrios.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A. & Barrios, M. Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 103, 795–812 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1574-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1574-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation