ArticleRevista de saude publica2021
Scientific sexism: the gender bias in the scientific production of the Universidade de São Paulo.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gender gaps in research: a systematic review.F1000Research · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Psychometric Properties of an Instrument for Assessing University Administrators' Knowledge on Gender-Based Violence.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
- The First Step.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate gender inequity in the scientific production of the University of Sao Paulo.
methodsMembers of the University of Sao Paulo faculty are the study population. The Web of Science repository was the source of the publication metrics. We selected the measures: total publications and citations, average of citations per year and item, H-index, and history of citations between 1950 and 2019. We used the name of the faculty member as a proxy to the gender identity. We use descriptive statistics to characterize the metrics. We evaluated the scissors effect by selecting faculty members with a high H-index. The historical series of citations was projected until 2100. We carry out analyses for the general population and working time subgroups: less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and 20 years or more.
resultsOf the 8,325 faculty members, we included 3,067 (36.8%). Among those included, 1,893 (61.7%) were male and 1,174 (38.28%) female. The male gender presented higher values in the publication metrics (average of articles: M = 67.0 versus F = 49.7; average of citations/year: M = 53.9 versus F = 35.9), and H-index (M = 14.5 versus F = 12.4). Among the 100 individuals with the highest H-index (≥ 37), 83% are male. The male curve grows faster in the historical series of citations, opening a difference between the groups whose separation is confirmed by the projection. DISCUSSION: Scientific production at the Universidade de São Paulo is subject to a gender bias. Two-thirds of the faculty are male, and hiring over the past few decades perpetuates this pattern. The large majority of high impact faculty members are male.
conclusionOur analysis suggests that the Universidade de São Paulo will not overcome gender inequality in scientific production without substantive affirmative action. Development does not happen by chance but through choices that are affirmative, decisive, and long-term oriented.
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.