Scientometrics

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 2023–2034 | Cite as

Gender and the h index in psychology

  • Lisa Geraci
  • Steve Balsis
  • Alexander J. Busch Busch
Article

Abstract

It has become increasingly common to rely on the h index to assess scientists’ contributions to their fields, and this is true in psychology. This metric is now used in many psychology departments and universities to make important decisions about hiring, promotions, raises, and awards. Yet, a growing body of research shows that there are gender differences in citations and h indices. We sought to draw attention to this literature, particularly in psychology. We describe the presence of a gender effect in h index in psychology and analyze why the effect is important to consider. To illustrate the importance of this effect, we translate the observed gender effect into a meaningful metric—that of salary—and show that the gender difference in h index could translate into significant financial costs for female faculty. A variety of factors are discussed that have been shown to give rise to gender differences in impact. We conclude that the h index, like many other metrics, may reflect systematic gender differences in academia, and we suggest using caution when relying on this metric to promote and reward academic psychologists.

Keywords

h index Citations Gender Psychology 

References

  1. Acuna, D. E., Allesina, S., & Kording, K. P. (2012). Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature, 489, 201–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association of University Professors (2014). The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2012-2013. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2014%20salary%20report/Table5.pdf.
  3. American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. (2014). How is the gender composition of faculty in graduate psychology departments changing? News from the APA’s Center for Workforce Studies, 45, 11. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/datapoint.aspx.Google Scholar
  4. Angelov, N., Johansson, P., & Lindahl, E. (2013). Is the persistent gender gap in income and wages due to unequal family responsibilities? IZA Discussion Paper, 7181, 1–39.Google Scholar
  5. Astin, H. S. (1978). Factors affecting women’s scholarly productivity. In R. Park, H. S. Astin, & W. Z. Hirsch (Eds.), The higher education of women: Essays in honor of Rosemary Park (pp. 133–157). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Astin, H. S., & Bayer, A. E. (1979). Pervasive sex differences in the academic reward system: Scholarship, marriage, and what else. In D. R. Lewis & W. E. Becker (Eds.), Academic rewards in higher education (pp. 211–230). Cambridge: Ballinger Pub Co.Google Scholar
  7. Astin, H. S., & Davis, D. E. (1985). Research productivity across the life and career cycles: Facilitators and barriers for women. In M. F. Fox (Ed.), Scholarly writing and publishing: Issues, problems, and solutions (pp. 147–160). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinex, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2011). The persistent gap: Understanding male-female salary differentials amongst Canadian academic staff. A report from the Canadian Association of University Teachers Equity Review, 5, 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Carr, P. L., Gunn, C. M., Kaplan, S. A., Raj, A., & Freund, K. M. (2015). Inadequate progress for women in academic medicine: Findings from the national faculty study. Journal of Women’s Health, 24, 190–199. doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: persistence and changes in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 2, 217–258.Google Scholar
  15. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cress, C. E., & Hart, J. H. (2009). Playing soccer on the football field: The persistence of gender inequities for women faculty. Equity and Excellence in Education, 42, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davenport, E., & Snyder, H. (1995). Who cites women? Whom do women cite? An exploration of gender and scholarly citation in sociology. Journal of Documentation, 51, 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., & Woodruff, T. (2012). The possible role of resources requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7, e51332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elsesser, K., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The glass partition: Obstacles to cross-sex friendships at work. Human Relations, 59, 1077–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferber, M. A., & Brun, M. (2011). The gender gap in citations: does it persist? Feminist Economics, 17, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72, 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, M. F. (1994). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1985). Men, women, and publication productivity: Patterns among social work academics. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner, S. K., & Blackstone, A. (2013). “Putting in your time”: Faculty experiences in the process of promotion to professor. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heijstra, T., Bjarnason, T., & Rafnsdottir, G. L. (2014). Predictors of gender inequalities in the rank of full professor. Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research,. doi:10.1080/00313831.2014.904417.Google Scholar
  28. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holliday, E. B., Jagsi, R., Wilson, L. D., Choi, M., Thomas Jr, C. R., & Fuller, C. D. (2014). Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration and funding among US academic radiation oncology faculty. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89, 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessments by numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, M. M., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., Bergstrom, C. T., & West, J. D. (unpublished manuscript). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Retrieved from http://www.eigenfactor.org/gender/self-citation/SelfCitation.pdf.
  33. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kyvik, S. (1990). Motherhood and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 20, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kyvik, S. (1991). Productivity in academia: Scientific publishing at Norwegian Universities. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lincoln, A., Pincus, S., Koster, J., & Leboy, P. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the United States, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42, 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67, 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Misra, J., Hicke Lundquist, J., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors, 97, 22–26.Google Scholar
  41. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archives of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, 57, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moss-Racusin, C., Molenda, A. K., & Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
  45. Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., Lindner, N. M., Kesebir, S., Hawkins, C. B., Hahn, C., et al. (2010). Cumulative and career- stage citation impact of social-personality psychology programs and their members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1283–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsen, T. B., Kyvik, S., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2005). The promotion to full professor—through competition or by individual competence? Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osborn, M. (1998). Facts and figures still show little room at the top for women in science in most EU countries in the EC (eds) Women in science. Proceedings of the conference, Brussels, April 28–29th 1998. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities European Commission.Google Scholar
  48. Osborn, M., Rees, T. Bosoch, M., Ebeling, H., Hermann, C., et al. (2000). Science policies in the European Union: Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. A Report from the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) Expert Working Group on Women in Science.Google Scholar
  49. Pashkova, A. A., Svider, P. F., Chang, C. Y., Diaz, L., Eloy, J. A., & Eloy, J. D. (2013). Gender disparity among US anaesthesiologists: are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity? Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 57, 1058–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penner, O., Petersen, A. M., Pan, R. K., & Forunato, S. (2013). The case for caution in predicting scientists’ future impact. Physics Today, 66, 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prozesky, H., & Boshoff, N. (2012). Bibliometrics as a tool for measuring gender-specific research performance: an example from South African invasion ecology. Scientometrics, 90, 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reskin, B. F. (1978). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1235–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roediger, H. L. (2006). The h index in Science: A new measure of scholarly contribution. The APS Observer, 19, 37–40.Google Scholar
  54. Rothstein, M. G., & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management Review, 10, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schreiber, M. (2008). To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10, 040201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H. L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D. M., et al. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Symonds, M. R. E., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Van Anders, S. M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professor. Sex Roles, 51, 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93, 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waltman, L., Costas, R., & Jan van Eck, N. (2012). Some limitations of the h index: A commentary on Ruscio and colleagues' analysis of bibliometric indices. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10, 172–175.Google Scholar
  63. Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54, 238–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weinberg, S. L., & Scott, M. A. (2013). The impact of uncapping of mandatory retirement on postsecondary institutions. Educational Researcher, 42, 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Commentary. Nature, 22, 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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, e66211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wicherski, B., Hamp, A., Christidis, P, & Stamm, K. (2014). American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies, 2013-14: Faculty salaries in graduate departments of psychology. Retrieved from http://apa.org/workforce/publications/13-fac-sal/index.aspx.
  68. Williams, G. L., Blackstone, T., & Metcalf, D. H. (1974). The academic labour market: Economic and social aspects of a profession (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Pub Co.Google Scholar
  69. Xie, Y., & Sherman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Geraci
    • 1
  • Steve Balsis
    • 1
  • Alexander J. Busch Busch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations