, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp 123–148 | Cite as

Women, peace and security state-of-art: a bibliometric analysis in social sciences based on SCOPUS database

  • Jesus Palomo
  • Cristina Figueroa-DomecqEmail author
  • Pilar Laguna


To the best of our knowledge, there is no work that has focused on analysing the development of the scientific production on women, peace and security. The main objective of this paper is to cover this research gap through a bibliometric analysis, that covers 95 years (1918–2013), of articles published in peer-reviewed journals extracted from the SCOPUS database. Bibliometric indicators and laws have been applied to better understand the patterns that govern the scientific literature on this realm. A gender perspective has also been implemented in the analysis. The analysis provides quantitative results based on 321 articles published by 478 authors in 210 scientific journals. The data showed the high dispersion of the literature, both in terms of authors and journals focused on the topic, and a low level of collaboration among both authors and institutions. Regarding the research topic, half of the papers were related to the impact of conflict on civilians and civil society. The implementation of a gender perspective shows that most of the first, second and third authors of the papers are women. In terms of methodologies, qualitative methodologies are the most relevant and women are more prolific applying these methodology. In terms of geographical region of the research, most of the studies have been performed by authors from institutions in Anglo-Saxon countries, and most of the fieldwork has been focused on the United States and the main areas of conflict in the world throughout history. Finally, important research opportunities are identified.


Women Peace and security Bibliometrics Gender Women War Peace Security Defence Defense 


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar-Moya, R., Melero-Fuentes, D., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Valderrama-Zurian, J.-C. (2013). Production and scientific collaboration in police training (1987–2011). Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36(4), 768–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsos, G. A., Hytti, U., & Ljunggren, E. (2013). Gender and innovation: State of the art and a research agenda. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andras, P. (2011). Research: metrics, quality, and management implications. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avramescu, A. (1980). Theoretical foundation of Bradford law. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 5, 15–22.Google Scholar
  6. Baaz, M. E., & Stern, M. (2013). Sexual violence as a weapon of war? London: The Nordin Africa Institute, ZED Books.
  7. Bajwa, R. S., & Yaldram, K. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology research in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 95(2), 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrios, M., Borrego, A., Vilagines, A., Olle, C., & Somoza, M. (2008). A bibliometric study of psychological research on tourism. Scientometrics, 77(3), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrot, J. S. (2016). Research impact and productivity of Southeast Asian countries in language and linguistics. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2163-3.Google Scholar
  10. Beer, C. (2009). Democracy and gender equality. Studies in Comparative International Development, 44(3), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanchard, E. M. (2003). Gender, international relations, and the development of feminist security theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(4), 1289–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Fernandez, M., & Gomez, I. (2003). One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and profesional category of scientists. Scientometrics, 57(2), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer, M. A., Urlacher, B., Florea Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., Janik, L. L., Butler, M. J., et al. (2009). Gender and negotiation: Some experimental findings form an international negotiation simulation. International Studies Quarterly, 53, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86. Reprinted in Collection Management, 1, 95–103.Google Scholar
  15. Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London, UK: Crosby, Lockwood.Google Scholar
  16. Bridges, D., & Horsfall, D. (2009). Increasing operational effectiveness in UN peacekeeping toward a gender-balanced force. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brysk, A., & Mehta, A. (2014). Do rights at home boost rights abroad? Sexual equality and humanitarian foreign policy. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, K. (2007). The gender of transitional justice: Law, sexual violence and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 1(3), 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cassola, A., Raub, A., Foley, D., & Heymann, J. (2014). Where do women stand? new evidence on the presence and absence of gender equality in the World’s constitutions. Politics & Gender, 10(2), 200–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Castillo, A., & Carreton, M. (2010). Research in communication. bibliometric study in journals of communication in Spain. Comunicacion y Sociedad, 23(2), 289–327.Google Scholar
  21. Cavero, J. M., Vela, B., & Caceres, P. (2014). Computer science research: More production, less productivity. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2103–2111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chang, P., Alam, M., Warren, R., Bhatia, R., & Turkington, R. (2015). Women leading peace. Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.
  23. Cohn, C., Kinsella, H., & Gibbings, S. (2004). Women, peace and security resolution 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6(1), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohn, C. & Ruddick, S. (2003). A feminist ethical perspective on weapons of mass destruction. Consortium on gender, security and human rights, Working paper 104.
  25. de de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A., & Barrios, M. (2015). Research on women in science and higher education: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 103(3), 795–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diem, A., & Wolter, S. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54(1), 86–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eito-Brun, R., & Rodríguez, M. L. (2016). 50 years of space research in Europe: A bibliometric profile of the European Space Agency (ESA). Scientometrics, 109(1), 551–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elshtain, J. B. (1987). Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ensslin, L., Dutra, A., Ensslin, S. R., Chaves, L. C., & Dezem, V. (2015). Research process for selecting a theoretical framework and bibliometric analysis of a theme: Illustration for the management of customer service in a bank. Modern Economy, 6(6), 782–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Figueroa, C., Palomo, J., & Gil-Ruiz, J. (2015). An Analysis of Annual National Reports to the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives from 1999-2013: Policies, Recruitment, Retention and Operations. Brussels: NATO:
  33. Figueroa-Domecq, C., Pritchard, A., Segovia-Pérez, M., Morgan, N., & Villacé-Molinero, T. (2015). Tourism gender research: A critical accounting. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Firestone, J. M., Miller, J. M., & Harris, R. (2012). Implications for criminal justice from the 2002 and 2006 Department of defense gender relations and sexual harrasment surveys. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 432–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frieyro de Lara, B., & Robles, M. (2012). La integracion de la perspectiva de genero en el analisis de los conflictos armados y la seguridad. Cuadernos de Estrategia, 157, 53–81.Google Scholar
  36. Garfield, E. (1971). The mystery of the transposed journal lists—wherein bradford’s law of scattering is generalized according to Garfield’s law of concentration. Current Contents, 3(33), 5–6.Google Scholar
  37. Garfield, E., & Merton, R. K. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities (Vol. 8). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Giroux, H. A. (2005). The passion of the right: Religious fundamentalism and the crisis of democracy. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 5(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). Tracing thought through time and space: A selective review of bibliometrics in social work. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3–4), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Inda, N. (2016). La perspectiva de género en investigaciones sociales. En Verschuur, C. (2016). Des brèches dans la ville: Organisations urbaines, environnement et transformation des rapports de genre. Graduate Institute Publications, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  42. Inglehart, R., Norris, P., & Welzel, C. (2002). Gender equality and democracy. Comparative Sociology, 1(3), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karim, S., & Beardsley, K. (2016). Explaining sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions the role of female peacekeepers and gender equality in contributing countries. Journal of Peace Research, 53(1), 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keathley-Herring, H., Van Aken, E., Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Deschamps, F., Letens, G., & Orlandini, P. C. (2016). Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics, 109(2), 927–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirby, P. (2015). Ending sexual violence in conflict: The Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and its critics. International Affairs, 91(3), 457–472.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koehler, W., Aguilar, P., Finarelli, S., Gaunce, C., Hatchette, S., Heydon, R., McEwen, E., Mahsetky-Poolaw, W., Melson, C., Patterson, R., Stahl, M., Walker, M., Wall, J., & Wingfield, G. (2000). A bibliometric analysis of select information science print and electronic journals in the 1990s. Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 54.
  47. Kuterovac Jagodi, G. (2000). Is war a good or a bad thing? The attitudes of Croatian, Israeli, and Palestinian children toward war. International Journal of Psychology, 35(6), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leatherman, J. (2011). Sexual violence and armed conflict. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  49. Leimkuhler, F. F. (1980). An exact formulation of Bradford’s law. Journal of Documentation, 36(4), 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewison, G. (2001). The quantity and quality of female researchers: A bibliometric study of Iceland. Scientometrics, 52(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
  52. Mairesse, J., & Pezzoni, M. (2015). Does gender affect scientific productivity? Revue Économique, 66(1), 65–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McWilliams, M. (2016). Women at the peace table: The gender dynamics of peace negotiations. Transitional Justice Institute Research Paper, No. 16-06. or
  54. McWilliams, M., & Kilmurray, A. (2015). August). From the global to the local: Grounding UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security in post conflict policy making. Women’s Studies International Forum, 51, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Melander, E. (2005). Political gender equality and state human rights abuse. Journal of Peace Research, 42(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moed, H. (2002). Measuring China’s research performance using the science citation index. Scientometrics, 53(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moya-Anegon, F., Vargas-Quesada, B., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Corera-Alvarez, E., Munoz- Fernandez, F. J., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). Visualizing the marrow of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2167–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Natale, F., Fiore, G., & Hofherr, J. (2011). Mapping the research on aquaculture. A bibliometric analysis of aquaculture literature. Scientometrics, 90(3), 983–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nath, R., & Jackson, W. M. (1991). Productivity of management information systems researchers: Does Lotka’s law apply? Information Processing and Management, 27(2), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ní Aoláin, F. (2016). The ‘war on terror’ and extremism: Assessing the relevance of the Women. Peace and Security agenda. International Affairs, 92(2), 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paffenholz, T., Ross, N., Dixon, S., Schluchter, A. L., & True, J. (2016). Making women count–not just counting women: Assessing Women’s Inclusion and Influence on Peace Negotiations. IPTI, UN WOMEN.
  62. Palomo, J., & Montalvo, S. (2011). An international platform for teaching support based on breaking news. ARBOR, Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 187, 249–253.Google Scholar
  63. Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka’s law: a testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Park, H. W., Yoon, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). The normalization of co-authorship networks in the bibliometric evaluation: The government stimulation programs of China and Korea. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.03593.
  65. Paton-Walsh, M. (2001). Women’s organizations, US Foreign Policy, and the Far Eastern Crisis, 1937–1941. Pacific Historical Review, 70(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pershing, J. L. (2001). Gender disparities in enforcing the honor concept at the US Naval Academy. Armed Forces & Society, 27(3), 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poiter, W. G. (1981). Lotka’s law revisited. Library Trends, 30(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  68. Pratt, N. (2013). Reconceptualizing gender, reinscribing racial-sexual boundaries in international security: The case of un security council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Polity, 57, 772–783.Google Scholar
  69. Quiney, L. J. (1998). Assistant angels: Canadian voluntary aid detachment nurses in the great war. Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 15(1), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ram, S., & Paliwal, N. (2014). Assessment of Bradford law of scattering to psoriasis literature through bibliometric snapshot. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 34(1), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rao, I. R. (1998). An analysis of bradford multipliers and a model to explain law of scattering. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 93–100.Google Scholar
  72. Reeves, A. (2012). Feminist knowledge and emerging governmentality in un peacekeeping: Patterns of co-optation and empowerment. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 14(3), 348–369.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society, 18(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ruiz-Cantero, M. T. (2007). El enfoque de género en la investigación y la difusión del conocimiento.
  75. Sahu, S. R., & Panda, K. C. (2012). A deductive approach to select or rank journals in multifaceted subject, oceanography. Scientometrics, 92(3), 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. SCImago. (2007). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from
  78. Selva, C., Sahagun, M., & Pallares, S. (2011). Studies on careers and women’s access to management positions: A bibliometric analysis [estudios sobre trayectoria profesional y acceso de la mujer a cargos directivos: Un analisis bibliometrico]. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 27(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sidhu, R., Rajashekhar, P., Lavin, V. L., Parry, J., Attwood, J., Holdcroft, A., et al. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sjoberg, L. (2010). Introduction. In L. Sjoberg (Ed.), Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, N. J., & Lee, D. (2015). What’s queer about political science? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 17(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Spanish Ministry of Science and Research. (2011). El género en la investigación.
  83. Sylvester, C. (2002). Feminist international relations: An unfinished journey (Vol. 77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Taylor, S., Mader, K., Lewis, C., & Herskowitz, T. (2013). Mapping women, peace and security in the Security Council: 20122013. Report of the NGOWG monthly action points. Working Group on Women, Peace and Security, New York.Google Scholar
  85. Team, R. D. C. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  86. Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security. NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Tryggestad, T. L. (2009). Trick or treat? the UN and implementation of security council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Global Governance, 15(4), 539–557.Google Scholar
  88. Tryggestad, T. L. (2010). The UN peacebuilding commission and gender: A case of norm reinforcement. International Peacekeeping, 17(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. United Nations. (1979). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW). Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13.
  90. United Nations. (1995). Beijing declaration and platform for action.
  91. United Nations Security Council. (2008). Resolution 1820. Adopted by the Council at its 5916th meeting on June 19.
  92. United Nations Security Council. (2009a). Resolution 1888. Adopted by the council at its 6195th meeting on September 30.
  93. United Nations Security Council. (2009b). Resolution 1889. Adopted by the council at its 6196th meeting on October 5.
  94. United Nations Security Council. (2010). Resolution 1960. Adopted by the council at its 6453rd meeting on December 16.
  95. United Nations Security Council. (2013a). Resolution 2106. Adopted by the council at its 6984th meeting on June 24.
  96. United Nations Security Council (2013b), Resolution 2122. Adopted by the council at its 7044th meeting on October 18.
  97. United Nations Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2242. Adopted by the council at its 7533rd meeting on October 13.
  98. United Nations Women. (2015). a global study on the implementation of united nations security council resolution 1325. New York. (20th November 2016).
  99. Vela, B., Caceres, P., & Cavero, J. M. (2012). Participation of women in software engineering publications. Scientometrics, 93(3), 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Villalobos, M. C. P., & Aviles, N. R. (2012). Igualdad y genero. conceptos basicos para su aplicacion en el ambito de la seguridad y defensa. Cuadernos de estrategia, 157, 21–51.Google Scholar
  101. Westendorf, J. K. (2013). ‘Add women and stir’: The regional assistance mission to Solomon Islands and Australia’s implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 456–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Willett, S. (2010). Introduction: Security Council Resolution 1325: assessing the impact on women, peace and security. International Peacekeeping, 17(2), 142–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Winslow, D. (2009). Gender mainstreaming: Lessons for diversity. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 47(4), 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wolfram, D. (2003). Applied informetrics for information retrieval research. Number 36. Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  105. Woodward, R. (2000). Warrior heroes and little green men: Soldiers, military training, and the construction of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology, 65(4), 640–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zainab, A. N. (2008). Growth and pattern of women’s studies in malaysia as reflected by generated literature. Libres, 18(2), 1–17.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rey Juan Carlos UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations