ArticlePloS one2016
The Effect of Gender in the Publication Patterns in Mathematics.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twenty years of infectious disease dynamics research: gender and race imbalances in publication and citation practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of automatic gender detection from names: evaluating the stability and performance of ChatGPTPeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Disciplinary gender balance, research productivity, and recognition of men and women in academia.PloS one · 2023Article
- A machine learning approach to quantify gender bias in collaboration practices of mathematicians.Frontiers in big data · 2022Article
- Analysis of author gender in TPB, 1991-2018.Theoretical population biology · 2019Article
- Reflections on Gender Analyses of Bibliographic Corpora.Frontiers in big data · 2019Article
- Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services.PeerJ. Computer science · 2018Article
- Women are underrepresented in computational biology: An analysis of the scholarly literature in biology, computer science and computational biology.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the increasing number of women graduating in mathematics, a systemic gender imbalance persists and is signified by a pronounced gender gap in the distribution of active researchers and professors. Especially at the level of university faculty, women mathematicians continue being drastically underrepresented, decades after the first affirmative action measures have been put into place. A solid publication record is of paramount importance for securing permanent positions. Thus, the question arises whether the publication patterns of men and women mathematicians differ in a significant way. Making use of the zbMATH database, one of the most comprehensive metadata sources on mathematical publications, we analyze the scholarly output of ∼150,000 mathematicians from the past four decades whose gender we algorithmically inferred. We focus on development over time, collaboration through coautorships, presumed journal quality and distribution of research topics-factors known to have a strong impact on job perspectives. We report significant differences between genders which may put women at a disadvantage when pursuing an academic career in mathematics.
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.