Articlenpj biodiversity2025
Is the audience gender-blind? Smaller attendance in female talks highlights an imbalanced visibility in academia.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female Representation and Quality Indicators in Anesthesiology and Critical Care Podcasts.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Structural barriers drive gender inequality across academic careers in Brazilian ecology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Is the audience gender-blind? Smaller attendance in female talks highlights an imbalanced visibility in academia.npj biodiversity · 2025Article
- How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.Ecology and evolution · 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
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.