SynthesisF1000Research2023
Gender gaps in research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gender gaps in research: a systematic review.F1000Research · 2023Pooled it
- Gender equity in scientific production in Peru and Colombia: reality or utopia in public universities?F1000Research · 2025Article
- The gap that Matilda will bridge: a look at the Colombian case.F1000Research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite significant advancements in closing the global gender gap, there is still much progress to be made, particularly in the field of science and scientific research. Numerous studies have addressed this issue and identified a variety of factors that contribute to gender asymmetries in research. Methods: This study aimed to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research present in the most cited studies of the past ten years as a first step towards closing these differences. Through a systematic literature review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology. Results: The results lead us to identify four dimensions to classify the determinants of the gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile with their respective quantitative or qualitative indicators. Conclusions: As a potential basis for further modeling that offers greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as the identification of targeted strategies aimed at reducing gender gaps in research.
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.