Scientometrics

, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 795–812

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

  • Tahereh Dehdarirad
  • Anna Villarroya
  • Maite Barrios
Article

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.

Keywords

Gender differences Higher education Science Bibliometrics 

Mathematics Subject Classification

01-00 62-07 

JEL Classification

C10 O30 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478. doi:10.2307/2095801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 23(3), 85–88.Google Scholar
  11. Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Commission, European. (2009). The gender challenge in research funding. Assessing the European national scenes. Brussels: Directorate General for Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  16. Commission, European. (2013). She figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation. Brussels: Directorate General for Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deloitte Consulting. (2013). Researchers’ report 2013. Brussels: European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dewandre, N. (2002). European strategies for promoting women in science. Science, 295(5553), 278–279. doi:10.1126/science.1063487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Egghe, L. (1986). The dual of Bradford’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(4), 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150. doi:10.1177/0306312705046630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115. doi:10.1023/A:1010512628145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754–780. doi:10.1177/0891243206293030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Leimkuhler, F. F. (1967). The Bradford distribution. Journal of Documentation, 23(3), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lemoine, W. (1992). Productivity patterns of men and women scientists in Venezuela. Scientometrics, 24(2), 281–295. doi:10.1007/BF02017912.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. LERU (League of European Research Universities). (2012). Women, research and universities: Excellence without gender bias. Leuven: League of European Research Universities.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178. doi:10.1093/sf/71.1.159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  58. Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka law: A testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Ranga, M., Gupta, N., & Etzkowitz, H. (2012). Gender effects in research funding. Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22–24. doi:10.1038/495022a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sonnert, G. (1996). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(2), 53–58.Google Scholar
  70. Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 891–920. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-5953-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Gender inequality index (GII). Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/gii.
  75. Van den Brink, M. (2011). Scouting for talent: Appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 72(12), 2033–2040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ward, M. (2001). The gender salary gap in British academia. Applied Economics, 33(13), 1669–1681. doi:10.1080/00036840010014445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zinovyeva, N., & Bagues, M. (2011). Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. IZA discussion paper no. 5537, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tahereh Dehdarirad
    • 1
  • Anna Villarroya
    • 2
  • Maite Barrios
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Public Economy, Political Economy and Spanish EconomyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Methodology of the Behavioural SciencesUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations