IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025ip71-4..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meeting evaluation criteria based on authorship positions by gender, academic age, and research field: the Spanish case

Author

Listed:
  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
  • Manuel Escabias
  • Fernanda Morillo

Abstract

This study aims to provide an overview of the distribution of the Spanish scientific workforce focusing on differences in authorship position by gender, academic age, number of authors, and research field. The results show some degree of parity in younger age cohorts and areas such as biomedicine, but little participation of females in the oldest age cohort and areas such as mathematics. In addition, the presence of women undergoes significant changes in certain areas and decreases in oldest age cohorts. This circumstance leads to a low probability of finding women or junior researchers in relevant authorship positions. Policymakers should know that inequalities in the scientific workforce must be considered when addressing/proposing scientific evaluation criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Manuel Escabias & Fernanda Morillo, 2025. "Meeting evaluation criteria based on authorship positions by gender, academic age, and research field: the Spanish case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 71-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:71-4.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf008
    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.

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:71-4.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.