ArticleScience advances2021
The gendered nature of authorship.
Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where Are the Women in Basic Science Research? Gender Trends in Abstracts Presented at the Academic Surgical Congress.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Researcher population pyramids: Tracking demographic and gender trajectories across countries.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals.eLife · 2026Article
- Gendered male and high-income country authors dominate publication at a One Health research organization.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Ten simple rules for faculty members building just and equitable environments in academic science.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- A 25-Year Gender Trend Analysis of Authorship in Cochrane Library's Database of Systematic Reviews.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Long-term trends of publications in journal of neuro-oncology: a bibliographic study of a core journal in the field of neuro-oncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Gender disparities among prestigious biomedical award recipients in Japan: A cross sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Activity for CUREs to increase student understanding and application of responsible authorship and publication practices.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Extended reality in cranial and spinal neurosurgery - a bibliometric analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- Review
- Article
- Overcoming citation bias is necessary for true inclusivity in Plant Science.The Plant cell · 2023Article
- Authorship agreements benefit researchers and research culture.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorship is the primary form of symbolic capital in science. Despite this, authorship is rife with injustice and malpractice, with women expressing concerns regarding the fair attribution of credit. Based on an international survey, we examine gendered practices in authorship communication, disagreement, and fairness. Our results demonstrate that women were more likely to experience authorship disagreements and experience them more often. Their contributions to research papers were more often devalued by both men and women. Women were more likely to discuss authorship with coauthors at the beginning of the project, whereas men were more likely to determine authorship unilaterally at the end. Women perceived that they received less credit than deserved, while men reported the opposite. This devaluation of women’s work in science creates cumulative disadvantages in scientific careers. Open discussion regarding power dynamics related to gender is necessary to develop more equitable distribution of credit for scientific labor.
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.