ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015
Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 244 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration.Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society · 2023Pooled it
- Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Trial
- More Biased, Yet More Informed? Documenting Me-Search Stigma Primarily Linked to Researchers' Own Group Memberships.Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2026Article
- Defining Health Misinformation: Theoretical Concept Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Teacher unfairness in adolescence, educational attainment, and adult Health: The role of school- and individual-level perceptions tested in a national cohort study.SSM - population health · 2025Article
- Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- WHAT DO STEM CLUBS DO? THE EFFECT OF COLLEGE CLUB PARTICIPATION ON CAREER CONFIDENCE AND MODERN SEXISM.Journal of women and minorities in science and engineering · 2025Article
- Article
- Examining how a documentary film can serve as an intervention to shift attitudes and behaviours around sexism in STEM.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A re-evaluation of gender bias in receptiveness to scientific evidence of gender bias.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Spotlights on blind spots.Nature chemistry · 2024Article
- Gender-based disparities and biases in science: An observational study of a virtual conference.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Article
- Creating Our Gendered Selves-College Experiences, Work and Family Plans, Gender Ideologies, and Desired Work Amenities Among STEM Graduates.Social currents · 2022Article
- Assessing perceived effectiveness of career development efforts led by the women in American Medical Informatics Association Initiative.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Appealing to Faculty Gatekeepers: Motivational Processes for Intentions to Adopt an Evidence-B ased Intervention.Bioscience · 2022Article
- The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM.Science advances · 2022Article
- Women in neurointervention, a gender gap? Results of a prospective online survey.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2022Article
- "Broad" Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.