Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40593529›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.

Hao Peng, Misha Teplitskiy, Daniel M Romero, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Social media promotion improves job market outcomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The cultural ecology of social media.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hao PengDepartment of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. haopeng@cityu.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5668-1680
Misha TeplitskiySchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-7228
Daniel M RomeroSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8351-3463
Emőke-Ágnes HorvátNorthwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. a-horvat@northwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7709-1172

Funding

City University of Hong Kong (CityU) 9610703National Science Foundation (NSF) IIS-1943506United States Department of Defense | United States Air Force | AFMC | Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AF Office of Scientific Research) FA9550-19-1-0029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but may not be exercised equally by everyone. Research on self-promotion in other domains suggests that, partly due to adverse reactions to non-gender-conforming career-enhancing behaviors, women tend to self-promote less often than men. We test whether this pattern extends to online spaces by examining scholarly self-promotion over six years using 23M tweets about 2.8M research papers authored by 3.5M scientists. We find that, overall, women are about 28% less likely than men to self-promote their papers on Twitter (now X) despite accounting for important confounds. The differential adoption of Twitter does not fully explain the gender gap in self-promotion, which is large even in relatively gender-balanced research areas, where adversity is expected to be smaller. Moreover, we find that the gender gap increases with higher performance and academic status, being most pronounced for research-prolific women from top-ranked institutions who publish papers in high-impact journals. We also find differential returns with respect to gender: while self-promotion is associated with increased tweets of papers compared to no self-promotion, the increase is slightly smaller for women than for men. Our findings reveal that scholarly self-promotion online varies meaningfully by gender and can contribute to a measurable gender gap in the visibility of scientific ideas.

Indexed as

Scholarly CommunicationSexismSocial MediaFemaleHumansMaleResearch PersonnelSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID40593529
PMCPMC12215391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.