ArticleNature human behaviour2023
Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who Agrees to Review a Manuscript inEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals.Science advances · 2026Article
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Researcher population pyramids: Tracking demographic and gender trajectories across countries.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Evaluating Methods for Imputing Race and Ethnicity in Electronic Health Record Data.Health services research · 2025Article
- Twenty years of infectious disease dynamics research: gender and race imbalances in publication and citation practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Gender rating gap in online reviews.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Article
- Capitalizing on a crisis: a computational analysis of all five million British firms during the Covid-19 pandemic.Journal of computational social science · 2025Article
- The gender agency gap in fiction writing (1850 to 2010).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The Black Lives Matter movement mitigates bias against racial minority actors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Book bans in political context: Evidence from US schools.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty.Science advances · 2023Article
- Article
- A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Junior scientists spotlight social bonds in seminars for diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academics and companies increasingly draw on large datasets to understand the social world, and name-based demographic ascription tools are widespread for imputing information that is often missing from these large datasets. These approaches have drawn criticism on ethical, empirical and theoretical grounds. Using a survey of all authors listed on articles in sociology, economics and communication journals in Web of Science between 2015 and 2020, we compared self-identified demographics with name-based imputations of gender and race/ethnicity for 19,924 scholars across four gender ascription tools and four race/ethnicity ascription tools. We found substantial inequalities in how these tools misgender and misrecognize the race/ethnicity of authors, distributing erroneous ascriptions unevenly among other demographic traits. Because of the empirical and ethical consequences of these errors, scholars need to be cautious with the use of demographic imputation. We recommend five principles for the responsible use of name-based demographic inference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37069295What 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.