IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0312731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel Goyanes
  • Esperanza Herrero
  • Luis de-Marcos

Abstract

Women researchers have been shown to be underrepresented in science, especially among the most productive scholars. This is especially relevant in the social sciences and humanities fields, where gender parity is closer, but disparities among top scholars are still pronounced. The gender gap in the field of communication has been explored from several approaches, but studies focusing on gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index are rather scarce. Drawing upon data retrieved from SciVal, we conducted a comparative study of the top 500 and top 100 most productive scholars (N = 5000) for each of the ten most productive countries in communication research in the 2019–2022 period: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, Germany, India, Australia, Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands. The results indicate a consistent underrepresentation of women, particularly among the top 500, across countries. Despite women being cited more frequently than men in some countries over shorter time frames, a gender bias persists favoring men, particularly when considering the h-index. All in all, our study shows that, despite hints of gender equality in citation patterns, the gender gap still constitutes a structural part of the field of communication when addressing gender representation in research productivity and long-term dynamics of research impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel Goyanes & Esperanza Herrero & Luis de-Marcos, 2024. "Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0312731
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312731
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312731&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0312731?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2009. "Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001," NBER Chapters, in: Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, pages 163-194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    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. Kai Li & Xiang Zheng & Chaoqun Ni, 2025. "Gender disparities in the STEM research enterprise in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. repec:osf:socarx:ck6s9_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nataly Matias-Rayme & Iuliana Botezan & Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa & Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez, 2024. "Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4553-4572, July.
    4. 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).
    5. Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Andrea Petróczi, 2024. "Impact as equalizer: the demise of gender-related differences in anti-doping research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4071-4108, July.
    6. 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).
    7. Alexandre Truc & François Claveau & Catherine Herfeld & Vincent Larivière, 2024. "Gender Homogeneity in Philosophy and Methodology of Economics: Evidence from Publication Patterns," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-25, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    8. Sánchez-Jiménez, Rodrigo & Guerrero-Castillo, Pablo & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Halevi, Gali & De-Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2024. "Analysis of the distribution of authorship by gender in scientific output: A global perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    9. Kjersten Bunker Whittington & Molly M. King & Isabella Cingolani, 2024. "Structure, status, and span: gender differences in co-authorship networks across 16 region-subject pairs (2009–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 147-179, January.
    10. Manuel Goyanes & Marton Demeter & Nataša Simeunović Bajić & Homero Gil Zúñiga, 2025. "Gender disparities in first authorship: examining the Matilda effect across communication, political science, and sociology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2947-2961, May.
    11. Truc, Alexandre & Claveau, François & Herfeld, Catherine & Larivière, Vincent, 2024. "Gender Homogeneity in Philosophy and Methodology of Economics: Evidence from Publication Patterns," SocArXiv ck6s9, Center for Open Science.
    12. Junwan Liu & Zining Cui & Chenchen Huang & Yinglu Song, 2025. "Choosing a career partner: birds of a feather flock together," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2749-2781, May.
    13. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti & Jose M. García-Álvarez-Coque, 2023. "Are female researchers more efficient? An analysis of gender in a Spanish technological university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6611-6632, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Stefan Gaillard & Tara van Viegen & Michele Veldsman & Melanie I Stefan & Veronika Cheplygina, 2022. "Ten simple rules for failing successfully in academia," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Emilia Del Bono & Andrea Weber & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2012. "Clash Of Career And Family: Fertility Decisions After Job Displacement," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 659-683, August.
    17. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    18. Wu, Jiang & Ou, Guiyan & Liu, Xiaohui & Dong, Ke, 2022. "How does academic education background affect top researchers’ performance? Evidence from the field of artificial intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    19. Chaojiang Wu & Erjia Yan & Yongjun Zhu & Kai Li, 2021. "Gender imbalance in the productivity of funded projects: A study of the outputs of National Institutes of Health R01 grants," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(11), pages 1386-1399, November.
    20. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    21. 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).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0312731. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.