IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i2p321-331..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Yasaman Sarabi
  • Matthew Smith

Abstract

Gender diversity in STEM remains a significant issue, as the field continues to be a male dominated one, despite increased attention on the subject. This article examines the interplay between gender diversity on projects funded by a major UK research council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the publication activity of a project, as measured by the average journal quality of project publication output, over a 10-year period. The proportion of female representation and leadership on these projects remains very low. For the projects examined as part of this study, over 70% of these projects have no female representation, and less than 15% have a female lead. This study does not find a significant relationship between gender diversity and journal quality output. This study highlights that an important avenue for future work is the development of alternative metrics to assess the performance of research projects in a discipline characterized by very low levels of gender diversity, to fully unpack the impact of project team gender diversity on project output activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasaman Sarabi & Matthew Smith, 2023. "Gender diversity and publication activity—an analysis of STEM in the UK," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 321-331.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:321-331.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvad008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    2. Gaule, Patrick & Piacentini, Mario, 2018. "An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 805-813.
    3. Liv Langfeldt & Carter Walter Bloch & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2015. "Options and limitations in measuring the impact of research grants—evidence from Denmark and Norway," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 256-270.
    4. Ann Rudinow Sætnan & Gunhild Tøndel & Bente Rasmussen, 2019. "Does counting change what is counted? Potential for paradigm change through performance metrics," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 73-83.
    5. Gaule, Patrick & Piacentini, Mario, 2017. "An Advisor Like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-Graduate Careers in Science," IZA Discussion Papers 10828, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    7. Potter Wickware, 1997. "Along the leaky pipeline," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6656), pages 202-203, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2021. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with supercited authors? Evidence from early-career economists," Serie documentos de trabajo del Centro de Estudios Económicos 2021-05, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos.
    2. Li Hou & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2022. "Does early publishing in top journals really predict long-term scientific success in the business field?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6083-6107, November.
    3. Takao Kato & Yang Song, 2022. "Advising, gender, and performance: Evidence from a university with exogenous adviser–student gender match," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 121-141, January.
    4. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2021. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," MERIT Working Papers 2021-011, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Sofia Patsali & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "The Impact of Research Independence on PhD Students’ Careers: Large-Scale Evidence from France," Post-Print hal-03564708, HAL.
    6. Hani Mansour & Daniel I. Rees & Bryson M. Rintala & Nathan N. Wozny, 2022. "The Effects of Professor Gender on the Postgraduation Outcomes of Female Students," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(3), pages 693-715, May.
    7. Audinga Baltrunaite & Alessandra Casarico & Lucia Rizzica, 2024. "Women in economics: the role of gendered references at entry in the profession," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1438, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    8. Canaan, Serena & Mouganie, Pierre, 2019. "Female Science Advisors and the STEM Gender Gap," IZA Discussion Papers 12415, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Ganguli, Ina & Gaulé, Patrick & Čugalj, Danijela Vuletić, 2022. "Chasing the academic dream: Biased beliefs and scientific labor markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 17-33.
    10. Valerie K. Bostwick & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2022. "Nevertheless She Persisted? Gender Peer Effects in Doctoral STEM Programs," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 397-436.
    11. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    12. Fons-Rosen, Christian & Gaule, Patrick & Hrendash, Taras, 2023. "Why Has Science Become an Old Man's Game?," IZA Discussion Papers 16365, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Joyce J. Chen & Daniel Crown, 2019. "The Gender Pay Gap in Academia: Evidence from the Ohio State University," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 101(5), pages 1337-1352, October.
    14. Arve, Malin & Valasek, Justin, 2023. "Underrepresentation, Quotas and Quality: A dynamic argument for reform," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 8/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Ganguli, Ina & Gaule, Patrick & Čugalj, Danijela Vuletić, 2020. "Biased Beliefs and Entry into Scientific Careers," IZA Discussion Papers 13475, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Qi Ge & Stephen Wu & Chenyu Zhou, 2021. "Sharing common roots: Student‐graduate committee matching and job market outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(2), pages 828-856, October.
    17. Broström, Anders, 2019. "Academic breeding grounds: Home department conditions and early career performance of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1647-1665.
    18. Estela Hernández-Martín & Fernando Calle & Juan C. Dueñas & Miguel Holgado & Asunción Gómez-Pérez, 2019. "Participation of women in doctorate, research, innovation, and management activities at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid: analysis of the decade 2006–2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1059-1089, September.
    19. Auschra, Carolin & Bartosch, Julia & Lohmeyer, Nora, 2022. "Differences in female representation in leading management and organization journals: Establishing a benchmark," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    20. Rossello, Giulia & Cowan, Robin & Mairesse, Jacques, 2020. "Ph.D. research output in STEM: the role of gender and race in supervision," MERIT Working Papers 2020-021, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    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:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:321-331.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.