A bibliometric analysis of gender in microbiology collaborations
Wheatley, R.; Ogunlana, L.
Show abstract
Women are underrepresented in senior academic positions within microbiology globally. Studies show that gender bias affects the progression of women in academia, but there is evidence that improving conscious awareness of bias can improve equity in this regard. Here we carry out a bibliometric analysis of review articles within the microbiology field to investigate the statistical associations with author gender. We analyse the publication data from 1857 review articles published between 2010 and 2022 in three leading microbiology review journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology, Trends in Microbiology, and Annual Review of Microbiology. We find a significant association between the gender of the lead author and the gender of co-authors in multi-author publications. Review articles with men lead authors have a significantly reduced proportion of women co-authors compared to reviews with women lead authors. Given the existing differences in the proportions of men and women in lead author positions, this association may have important consequences for the relative visibility of women in microbiology, along with potential negative impacts on scientific output relating to reduced collaboration diversity. We further probe associations between gender and citation metrics, acknowledgement of contributions, and publishing during the Covid-19 pandemic within microbiology reviews.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Full Publication of Preprint Articles in Prevention Research: An Analysis of Publication Proportions and Results Consistency 91%
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 90%
- Understanding artificial mouse-microbiome heterogeneity and six actionable themes to increase study power 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.