ArticlePloS one2020
The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men's) published research.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors.PloS one · 2023Article
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Gender inequality among medical, pharmaceutical and dental practitioners in French hospitals: Where have we been and where are we now?PloS one · 2021Article
- Woman authorship in pre-print versus peer-reviewed oral health-related publications: A two-year observational study.PloS one · 2021Observational
- Closing the gender gap at academic conferences: A tool for monitoring and assessing academic events.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subtle gender dynamics in the publishing process involving collaboration, peer-review, readership, citation, and media coverage disadvantage women in academia. In this study we consider whether commenting on published work is also gendered. Using all the comments published over a 16-year period in PNAS (N = 869) and Science (N = 481), we find that there is a gender gap in the authorship of comment letters: women are less likely than men to comment on published academic research. This disparity is greater than gender differences in the publication of research articles. There is also a gendered pattern in commenting: women comment writers are relatively less likely to engage with men's research. If left unaddressed, these patterns in academic commenting could impede scholarly exchange between men and women and further marginalize women within the scientific community.
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.