ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars' work.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social media promotion improves job market outcomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Network inequality through preferential attachment, triadic closure, and homophily.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gender representation in leadership and speaking roles at rehabilitation medicine conferences in the UK: a 26-year analysis.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- When Matilda shows up: The double-edged impact of women researchers' media visibility in management science.PloS one · 2026Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A decade of vertebrate palaeontology research: global taxa distribution, gender dynamics and evolving methodologies.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Collective dynamics behind success.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Exploring the impact of sentiment on multi-dimensional information dissemination using COVID-19 data in China.Computers in human behavior · 2023Article
- The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gendered research productivity and its correlates.Journal of informetrics · 2023Article
- Not yet defect-free: the current landscape for women in computational materials research.npj computational materials · 2023Article
- Article
- Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study.PloS one · 2022Observational
- "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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unbiased science dissemination has the potential to alleviate some of the known gender disparities in academia by exposing female scholars' work to other scientists and the public. And yet, we lack comprehensive understanding of the relationship between gender and science dissemination online. Our large-scale analyses, encompassing half a million scholars, revealed that female scholars' work is mentioned less frequently than male scholars' work in all research areas. When exploring the characteristics associated with online success, we found that the impact of prior work, social capital, and gendered tie formation in coauthorship networks are linked with online success for men, but not for women-even in the areas with the highest female representation. These results suggest that while men's scientific impact and collaboration networks are associated with higher visibility online, there are no universally identifiable facets associated with success for women. Our comprehensive empirical evidence indicates that the gender gap in online science dissemination is coupled with a lack of understanding the characteristics that are linked with female scholars' success, which might hinder efforts to close the gender gap in visibility.
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.