Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29293499›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals.

Michael H K Bendels, Ruth Müller, Doerthe Brueggmann, David A Groneberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Prediction of transformative breakthroughs in biomedical research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Women in science: bridging gaps in basic sciences.Trends in molecular medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Women climate scientists are connected, productive, and successful but have shorter careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael H K BendelsDivision of Computational Medicine, Institute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4931-6466
Ruth MüllerDivision of Computational Medicine, Institute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.
Doerthe BrueggmannDivision of Computational Medicine, Institute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.
David A GronebergDivision of Computational Medicine, Institute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality research by analyzing the representation of female authorships in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016).

methodsBased on the Gendermetrics platform, 293,557 research articles from 54 journals listed in the Nature Index were considered covering the categories Life Science, Multidisciplinary, Earth & Environmental and Chemistry. The core method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.

results29.8% of all authorships and 33.1% of the first, 31.8% of the co- and 18.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.19 (CI: 1.18-1.20) for first, 1.35 (CI: 1.34-1.36) for co- and 0.47 (CI: 0.46-0.48) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = -0.42). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. More specifically, a large negative correlation between the 5-Year-Impact-Factor of a journal and the female representation at prestigious authorships was revealed (r(52) = -.63, P < .001). Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.0% female authors are responsible for 29.8% of all authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 2 articles per author. Articles with female key authors are less frequently cited than articles with male key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Distinct differences at the journal, journal category, continent and country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecast a very slow harmonization of authorships odds between the two genders.

Indexed as

AuthorshipPublishingResearchSex FactorsFemaleHumansJournal Impact FactorMale

Identifiers

PMID29293499
PMCPMC5749692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.