ArticlePloS one2022
Brazilian female researchers do not publish less despite an academic structure that deepens sex gap.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The future of Brazilian science.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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the 21st century, we still need to talk about gender inequality in science. Even with the sharp growth of studies on this theme over the last decades, we are still trying to convince our peers that diversity matters and, if embraced, makes better science. Part of this drawback can be related to the need for data to support effective proposals to change the academic scenario. In order to close some of those gaps, we here analyze 1) the profile of Brazilian researchers based on production, impact, and membership to the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 2) participation in the Editorial boards of Brazilian journals dedicated to Entomology, and, 3) the academic scenario of Brazilian Entomology focusing on the sex of the first and last authors in peer-reviewed international publications related to Entomology. We aimed to provide a deeper look on the Brazilian Entomology scenario and to expand the amount of data availability to stimulate and foster a mind-change in the current academic structure. We performed scientometric searches and analysis using different platforms and found that the number and impact of the publications by female researchers, as observed by relative numbers, are not less than that of males. Despite that, female researchers are less represented at the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and editorial boards, reinforcing the lack of women recognition in science. Thus, we observe that some narratives related to the productivity gap can be misleading to a perpetuation of our internal and structural biases. We here expanded data from a previous paper where we scrutinized the Brazilian Entomology scenario and discussed the patches and systems that maintain gender gap in science.
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.