IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i1p232-243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis

Author

Listed:
  • González-Álvarez, Julio
  • Cervera-Crespo, Teresa

Abstract

Neuroscience or Neural Science is a very active and interdisciplinary field that seeks to understand the brain and the nervous system. In spite of important advances made in recent decades, women are still underrepresented in neuroscience research output as a consequence of gender inequality in science overall. This study carries out a scientometric analysis of the 30 neuroscience journals (2009–2010) with the highest impact in the Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters) in order to quantitatively examine the current contribution of women in neuroscientific production, their pattern of research collaboration, scientific content, and the analysis of scientific impact from a gender perspective. From a total of 66,937 authorships, gender could be identified in 53,351 (79.7%) of them. Results revealed that 67.1% of the authorships corresponded to men and 32.9% to women. In relative terms, women tend to be concentrated in the first position of the authorship by-line (which could be a reflection of new female incorporations into neuroscience research publishing their first studies), and much less in the last (senior) position. This double pattern suggests that age probably plays a role in (partly) explaining gender asymmetry, both in science in general and in neuroscience in particular.

Suggested Citation

  • González-Álvarez, Julio & Cervera-Crespo, Teresa, 2017. "Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 232-243.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:232-243
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716302462
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Chaoqun Ni & Yves Gingras & Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2013. "Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 504(7479), pages 211-213, December.
    2. Maite Barrios & Anna Villarroya & Ángel Borrego, 2013. "Scientific production in psychology: a gender analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 15-23, April.
    3. Pleun Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2012. "Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 857-868, December.
    4. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 457-472, January.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & Rickard Danell & Olle Persson, 2003. "The decline of Swedish neuroscience: Decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 197-213, June.
    6. Helen Shen, 2013. "Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7439), pages 22-24, March.
    7. Rørstad, Kristoffer & Aksnes, Dag W., 2015. "Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 317-333.
    8. Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    9. Hildrun Kretschmer & Ramesh Kundra & Donald deB. Beaver & Theo Kretschmer, 2012. "Gender bias in journals of gender studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 135-150, October.
    10. Juan Zhang & Qi Yu & Fashan Zheng & Chao Long & Zuxun Lu & Zhiguang Duan, 2016. "Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 967-972, April.
    11. Jevin D West & Jennifer Jacquet & Molly M King & Shelley J Correll & Carl T Bergstrom, 2013. "The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-6, July.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Murgia, Gianluca, 2013. "Gender differences in research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 811-822.
    14. Allison L. Hopkins & James W. Jawitz & Christopher McCarty & Alex Goldman & Nandita B. Basu, 2013. "Disparities in publication patterns by gender, race and ethnicity based on a survey of a random sample of authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 515-534, August.
    15. José María Cavero & Belén Vela & Paloma Cáceres & Carlos Cuesta & Almudena Sierra-Alonso, 2015. "The evolution of female authorship in computing research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 85-100, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dewan F. Wahid & Elkafi Hassini, 2022. "A Literature Review on Correlation Clustering: Cross-disciplinary Taxonomy with Bibliometric Analysis," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1-42, September.
    2. Ann-Maree Vallence & Mark R Hinder & Hakuei Fujiyama, 2019. "Data-driven selection of conference speakers based on scientific impact to achieve gender parity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Sabrina J. Mayer & Justus M. K. Rathmann, 2018. "How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1663-1693, December.
    4. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    5. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frandsen, Tove Faber & Jacobsen, Rasmus Højbjerg & Wallin, Johan A. & Brixen, Kim & Ousager, Jakob, 2015. "Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences Graduates," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1007-1017.
    2. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine Le & Bertrand, Gaël & Razgallah, Meriam & Maalaoui, Adnane & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2021. "Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    4. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    5. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    6. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    7. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    8. Jamal El-Ouahi & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "On the lack of women researchers in the Middle East and North Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4321-4348, August.
    9. Luke Holman & Claire Morandin, 2019. "Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    11. Aleksandra Cislak & Magdalena Formanowicz & Tamar Saguy, 2018. "Bias against research on gender bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 189-200, April.
    12. Matthias Kuppler, 2022. "Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6695-6732, November.
    13. Sabrina J. Mayer & Justus M. K. Rathmann, 2018. "How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1663-1693, December.
    14. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 25-38.
    16. Perlin, Marcelo S. & Santos, André A.P. & Imasato, Takeyoshi & Borenstein, Denis & Da Silva, Sergio, 2017. "The Brazilian scientific output published in journals: A study based on a large CV database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 18-31.
    17. Abramo, Giovanni & Aksnes, Dag W. & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2021. "Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Charissa Samaniego & Peggy Lindner & Maryam A. Kazmi & Bobbie A. Dirr & Dejun Tony Kong & Evonzia Jeff-Eke & Christiane Spitzmueller, 2023. "Higher research productivity = more pay? Gender pay-for-productivity inequity across disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1395-1407, February.
    19. Liu, Meijun & Zhang, Ning & Hu, Xiao & Jaiswal, Ajay & Xu, Jian & Chen, Hong & Ding, Ying & Bu, Yi, 2022. "Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. Thu-Trang Vuong & Hong Kong T. Nguyen & Tung Manh Ho & Toan Manh Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2017. "The (In)Significance of Socio-Demographic Factors as Possible Determinants of Vietnamese Social Scientists’ Contribution-Adjusted Productivity: Preliminary Results from 2008–2017 Scopus Data," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:232-243. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.