, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 339–353 | Cite as

The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography

  • Jacqueline Leta
  • Grant Lewison


The performance of Brazilian male and female scientists in three scientific fields was assessed through their publications in the Science Citation Index from 1997-2001. Information on their sex and their ages, positions, and fellowship status was obtained from a census on all Brazilian scientists. The results showed that women participated most in immunology, moderately in oceanography and least in astronomy. Men and women published similar numbers of papers, and they were also of similar potential impact; they were also equally likely to collaborate internationally. Nevertheless, women were less likely than men to receive fellowships to supplement their salaries, suggesting that some sexual discrimination may still be occurring in the Brazilian peer-review process.


International Collaboration Female Scientist Brazilian Woman Brazilian Publication Brazilian Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rossi A. S., Women in science: why so few? Science, 148 (1965) 1196–1202.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore K. M., Women.s access and opportunity in higher education: toward the twenty-first century. Comparative Education, 23 (1987) 23–33.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGregor E., Harding S., Science by whom? In World Science Report, Paris, UNESCO 1996. At Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tobias S., Urry M., Venkatesan A., Physics: for women, the last frontier. Science, 296 (2002) 1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kondro W., Canada-few women win new academic chairs. Science, 296 (2002) 2319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osborn M., Status and prospects of women in science in Europe. Science, (11 March) 263 (1994) 1389–1391.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barinaga M., Women in science '94–surprises across the cultural divide. Science, (11 March) 263 (1994) 1468–1496.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hassan F., Islamic women in science. Science, (6 October) 290 (2000) 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vetter B. M., Women scientists and engineers: trends in participation. Science, 214 (1981) 1313–1321.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lane J. N., Why are there so few women in science. Science debate. at Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kyvik S., Teigen M., Child care, research collaboration and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21 (1996) 54–71.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dutt D., How much gender disparity exists in salary? A profile of graduates of a major public university. Research in Higher Education, 38 (1997) 631–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seacgrist L., Disparities detailed in NCI division. Science, 264 (1994) 340.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etzkowitz H., Kemelgor C., Neuschatz M., Uzzi B., Alonzo J., The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266 (1994) 51–54.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewison G., The quantity and quality of female researchers: a bibliometric study of Iceland. Scientometrics, 52(1) (2001) 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webster, B. M., Polish women in science: a bibliometric analysis of Polish science and its publications, 1980–1999. Research Evaluation, 10(3) (2001) 185–194.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Velho L., León E., A construção social da produção científica por mulheres. Cadernos Pagu, 10 (1988) 309–344.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Diretório de Grupos de Pesquisa, Available at: Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewison G., The definition of biomedical research sub-fields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Research Evaluation, 6(1) (1996) 25–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewison G., The definition and calibration of biomedical sub-fields. Scientometrics, 46(3) (1999) 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basu A., Lewison G., Evaluation of astronomy and astrophysics research output using a title-word search in place of journal classification. In: Eighth International Conference of International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sydney, Australia, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewison G., Lipworth S., Rippon I., Austrian biomedical research outputs 1991–2000. Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Vienna, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gomez I., Sancho R., Moreno L., Fernandez M. T., Influence of Latin-American journals coverage by international databases. Scientometrics, 46(3) (1999) 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    FUVEST, Fundação universitária para o Vestibular. Available at Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basu A., Vinu Kumar B. S., International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48(3) (2000) 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernandez M. T., Gomez I., Sebastian J., Scientific cooperation of Latin-American countries through bibliometrics indicators. Interciencia, 23(6) (1998) 328+.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Braun T., Glänzel W., International collaboration-will it be keeping alive East European research? Scientometrics, 36(2) (1996) 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lewison G., Fawcett-Jones A., Kessler C., Latin American scientific output 1986–91 and international co-authorship patterns. Scientometrics, 27(3) (1993) 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Narin F., Stevens K., Whitlow E. S., Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Raan A. F. J., The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42(3) (1998) 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ramsay S., Radical reform of UK consultants. salaries announced. The Lancet, (15 August) 352 (1998) 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wenneras C., Wold A., Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387 (1997) 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bruschini C., Crescimento e crise: trabalho das brasileiras, paulistas e nordestinas, de 1970 a 1985. Ciência e Cultura, 42 (1990) 226–247.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Available at Scholar
  35. 35.
    CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Diretório de Grupos de Pesquisa, ano 2002. Séries Históricas. Available at Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers/Akadémiai Kiadó 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline Leta
    • 1
  • Grant Lewison
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Biochemistry, Institute for Biomedical SciencesFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de Janeiro (Brazil
  2. 2.Department of Information ScienceCity University Department of Information ScienceLondon (England

Personalised recommendations