ArticleeLife2023
The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity within academia.
Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving modelling for epidemic response: a progress update from a community of UK infectious disease modellers.Interface focus · 2025Article
- Twenty years of infectious disease dynamics research: gender and race imbalances in publication and citation practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Immediate and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific productivity in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring individual biases in BCI research and users: Does gender matter?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Trend of Representation of Women in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy Conferences in Asia.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Social Perception of Zoos and Aquariums: What We Know and How We Know It.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Article
- Impact of COVID-19 and the cancellation of the 2020 PAS Meeting on abstract publications.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Editorial: Women in science: ophthalmology 2023.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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
Using measures of research productivity to assess academic performance puts women at a disadvantage because gender roles and unconscious biases, operating both at home and in academia, can affect research productivity. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research productivity has been the subject of a number of studies, including studies based on surveys and studies based on numbers of articles submitted to and/or published in journals. Here, we combine the results of 55 studies that compared the impact of the pandemic on the research productivity of men and women; 17 of the studies were based on surveys, 38 were based on article counts, and the total number of effect sizes was 130. We find that the gender gap in research productivity increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest changes occurring in the social sciences and medicine, and the changes in the biological sciences and TEMCP (technology, engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics) being much smaller.
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.