Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40696145›Full record

Articlenpj biodiversity2025

Is the audience gender-blind? Smaller attendance in female talks highlights an imbalanced visibility in academia.

Júlia Rodrigues Barreto, Isabella Romitelli, Pamela Cristina Santana, Ana Paula Aprígio Assis, Renata Pardini, Melina de Souza Leite

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj biodiversity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Júlia Rodrigues Barreto *Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Isabella Romitelli *Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pamela Cristina SantanaDepartment of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Paula Aprígio AssisDepartment of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Renata PardiniDepartment of Zoology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Melina de Souza Leite *Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. melina.leite@ib.usp.br.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 140232/2018-4Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2024/12570-0Serrapilheira Institute R-2401-46529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diverse perspectives are essential to the advancement of biodiversity science, yet persistent structural biases continue to shape who is seen and heard in academic spaces. Despite efforts to promote inclusivity, it remains unclear whether increased representation translates into equitable visibility and engagement from peers. Seminar talks, key arenas for idea exchange and networking, offer a window into how such dynamics unfold. Here, we used long-term data from a well-established Brazilian seminar series in ecology and conservation science to examine whether affirmative actions have narrowed gender gaps in academic visibility, measured through audience attendance. We show that women, particularly at senior academic levels, consistently drew smaller audiences than their male counterparts. This visibility gap persisted even after accounting for differences in speaker productivity, career length, and talk topics, and despite institutional affirmative actions to increase gender representation. The findings suggest that representation alone may be insufficient to overcome ingrained recognition biases, highlighting how subtle forms of exclusion can persist in academic culture. By documenting these gendered patterns within the academic environment, our study contributes to a broader understanding of how visibility and recognition are unequally distributed, and it supports ongoing efforts to foster a more equitable and robust scientific community.

Identifiers

PMID40696145
PMCPMC12284247

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.