ArticleScientometrics2025
Divided by discipline? A systematic literature review on the quantification of online sexism and misogyny using a semi-automated approach.
Article in Scientometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Several computational tools have been developed to detect and identify sexism, misogyny, and gender-based hate speech, particularly on online platforms. These tools draw on insights from both social science and computer science. Given the increasing concern over gender-based discrimination in digital spaces, the contested definitions and measurements of sexism, and the rise of interdisciplinary efforts to understand its online manifestations, a systematic literature review is essential for capturing the current state and trajectory of this evolving field. In this review, we make four key contributions: (1) we synthesize the literature into five core themes-definitions of sexism and misogyny, disciplinary divergences, automated detection methods, associated challenges, and design-based interventions; (2) we adopt an interdisciplinary lens, bridging theoretical and methodological divides across social psychology, computer science, and gender studies; (3) we highlight critical gaps, including the need for intersectional approaches, the under-representation of non-Western languages and perspectives, and the limited focus on proactive design strategies beyond text classification; and (4) we offer a methodological contribution by applying a rigorous semi-automated systematic review process guided by PRISMA, establishing a replicable standard for future work in this domain. Our findings reveal a clear disciplinary divide in how sexism and misogyny are conceptualized and measured. Through an evidence-based synthesis, we examine how existing studies have attempted to bridge this gap through interdisciplinary collaboration. Drawing on both social science theories and computational modeling practices, we assess the strengths and limitations of current methodologies. Finally, we outline key challenges and future directions for advancing research on the detection and mitigation of online sexism and misogyny.
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.