IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v53y2024i1s0048733323001798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender homophily: In-group citation preferences and the gender disadvantage

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Sifan
  • Chai, Sen
  • Freeman, Richard B.

Abstract

Based on an extensive sample of articles in the life sciences, we find that gender homophily in forward citations is substantial: compared to men-led articles (i.e., those with men as either the first or last author), women-led articles receive fewer forward citations from subsequent men-led articles and more forward citations from subsequent women-led articles. This occurs across life science fields with varying gender ratios. Forward citations flow differentially to papers led by women versus men for a variety of reasons, including the detailed field and scientific concepts covered in the articles, the journals in which they are published, article length, authors' research experience, and the size of the author team. After accounting for this extensive set of factors, we find some forward citations appear to be driven by gender citation homophily – that is, gender alignment between citing and cited authors. This pattern greatly disadvantages women in fields where they are underrepresented, leading to a gender citation gap, compared to more gender-balanced fields, where the gap is shrinking. We also find that articles written by more recent cohorts of scientists are subject to less gender citation homophily than earlier cohorts. Investigation into potential pathways by which gender citation homophily operates suggests it stems from gendered specialization in research niches and, to a lesser extent, from gender homophily in professional connections among scientists, as opposed to from direct discrimination against unknown authors based on gender inferred from their names. Since gender homophily in citations impedes gender-indifferent knowledge flow in most fields, its adverse impact on science likely includes not only slowing women's careers but also creating a less efficient diffusion of knowledge and recombination of work from earlier papers into newer work.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Sifan & Chai, Sen & Freeman, Richard B., 2024. "Gender homophily: In-group citation preferences and the gender disadvantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:1:s0048733323001798
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323001798
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895?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. Glenn Ellison, 2013. "How Does the Market Use Citation Data? The Hirsch Index in Economics," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 63-90, July.
    2. Beaudry, Catherine & Larivière, Vincent, 2016. "Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1790-1817.
    3. Kevin J. Boudreau & Tom Brady & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Anthony Hollenberg & Karim R. Lakhani, 2017. "A Field Experiment on Search Costs and the Formation of Scientific Collaborations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 565-576, July.
    4. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    5. Dion, Michelle L. & Sumner, Jane Lawrence & Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, 2018. "Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 312-327, July.
    6. Richard B. Freeman & Wei Huang, 2015. "Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(S1), pages 289-318.
    7. Graddy-Reed, Alexandra & Lanahan, Lauren & Eyer, Jonathan, 2019. "Gender discrepancies in publication productivity of high-performing life science graduate students," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. 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.
    9. Sen Chai & Richard B. Freeman, 2019. "Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery: Who confers at conferences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(13), pages 2138-2164, December.
    10. Matthew B. Ross & Britta M. Glennon & Raviv Murciano-Goroff & Enrico G. Berkes & Bruce A. Weinberg & Julia I. Lane, 2022. "Women are credited less in science than men," Nature, Nature, vol. 608(7921), pages 135-145, August.
    11. Matt Marx & David H. Hsu, 2022. "Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Commercialization of Academic Science: Evidence from “Twin” Discoveries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1330-1352, February.
    12. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    14. Orsolya Vásárhelyi & Igor Zakhlebin & Staša Milojević & Emőke-Ágnes Horvát, 2021. "Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(39), pages 2102945118-, September.
    15. Yang Yang & Tanya Y. Tian & Teresa K. Woodruff & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi, 2022. "Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 119(36), pages 2200841119-, September.
    16. Sen Chai & Alexander D’Amour & Lee Fleming, 2020. "Explaining and predicting the impact of authors within a community: an assessment of the bibliometric literature and application of machine learning," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(1), pages 61-80.
    17. Pierre Azoulay & Freda B. Lynn, 2020. "Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science," NBER Working Papers 26893, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Joshi, Aparna & Labianca, Giuseppe & Caligiuri, Paula M., 2002. "Getting along long distance: understanding conflict in a multinational team through network analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 277-284, January.
    19. Yang Yang & Tanya Y. Tian & Teresa K. Woodruff & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi, 2022. "Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(36), pages 2200841119-, September.
    20. Diego Kozlowski & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Thema Monroe-White, 2022. "Intersectional inequalities in science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(2), pages 2113067119-, January.
    21. Ray Reagans, 2011. "Close Encounters: Analyzing How Social Similarity and Propinquity Contribute to Strong Network Connections," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 835-849, August.
    22. Alexandra Graddy-Reed & Lauren Lanahan, 2023. "Prioritizing diversity? The allocation of US federal R&D funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 104-119.
    23. Bol, Thijs & de Vaan, Mathijs & van de Rijt, Arnout, 2022. "Gender-equal funding rates conceal unequal evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    24. Bas Hofstra & Vivek V. Kulkarni & Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez & Bryan He & Dan Jurafsky & Daniel A. McFarland, 2020. "The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(17), pages 9284-9291, April.
    25. Ali Gazni & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "The long-term influence of collaboration on citation patterns," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 261-271.
    26. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Junming Huang & Alexander J. Gates & Roberta Sinatra & Albert-László Barabási, 2020. "Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(9), pages 4609-4616, March.
    28. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1572-1594, September.
    29. 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.
    30. Gokhan Ertug & Martin Gargiulo & Charles Galunic & Tengjian Zou, 2018. "Homophily and Individual Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 912-930, October.
    31. Eun Lee & Fariba Karimi & Claudia Wagner & Hang-Hyun Jo & Markus Strohmaier & Mirta Galesic, 2019. "Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 1078-1087, October.
    32. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    33. Éric Montpetit & André Blais & Martial Foucault, 2008. "What Does it Take for a Canadian Political Scientist to be Cited?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 802-816, September.
    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. Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas Augusto van der Velde & Magdalena Smyk, 2024. "Gender-neutral hiring of junior scholars," GRAPE Working Papers 94, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.

    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. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    2. Abdelghani Maddi & Yves Gingras, 2021. "Gender Diversity In Research Teams And Citation Impact In Economics And Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1381-1404, December.
    3. Yining Wang & Qiang Wu & Liangyu Li, 2024. "Examining the influence of women scientists on scientific impact and novelty: insights from top business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3517-3542, June.
    4. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    5. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    6. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    7. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2021. "Gender Disparities In International Research Collaboration: A Study Of 25,000 University Professors," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1344-1380, December.
    8. 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).
    9. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    10. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    12. Kim, Lanu & Smith, Daniel Scott & Hofstra, Bas & McFarland, Daniel A., 2022. "Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    13. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    14. Zhang, Ning & He, Guangye & Shi, Dongbo & Zhao, Zhenyue & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    15. Si, Kao & Li, Yiwei & Ma, Chao & Guo, Feng, 2023. "Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    16. Biermann, Marcus, 2024. "Remote talks: Changes to economics seminars during COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    18. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Letki, Natalia & Biały, Grzegorz & Sankowski, Piotr & Walentek, Dawid, 2022. "Streamlining for excellence discriminates against women: A study of research productivity of 2.7 mln scientists in 45 countries," OSF Preprints yr8me, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knowledge flow; Forward citation; Gender inequality; Gender homophily; Field & cohort heterogeneity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:1:s0048733323001798. 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/respol .

    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.