ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Gender disparities in the impact of generative artificial intelligence: Evidence from academia.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of generative artificial intelligence on students' learning motivation: evidence from a meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Gender shapes the relationship between productivity and journal prestige in science.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- University students' acceptance of generative artificial intelligence tools: a mixed-methods study on opinions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Recalibrating academic expertise in the age of generative AI.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Explaining women's skepticism toward artificial intelligence: The role of risk orientation and risk exposure.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- The current status, knowledge, attitudes, and challenges of generative artificial intelligence use among undergraduate nursing students: a single-center cross-sectional survey of western China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT has substantially increased individuals' productivity. In this study, we adopt a difference-in-differences approach to analyze a large dataset of research preprints to systematically examine whether the advent of generative AI has distinct effects on the productivity of male and female academic researchers. We find that after the emergence of ChatGPT, the increase in the productivity of male researchers is 6.4% higher than that of female researchers, implying a widening of the productivity gap between them. We then conduct a survey about researchers' use of ChatGPT and find that male researchers use generative AI more frequently and experience higher efficiency improvement from its use than female researchers. Our findings show the unintended consequences of generative AI and point to the need for institutions to consider its differential effects on productivity to ensure fairness when evaluating faculty members.
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.