The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists (2001.01002v2)

Abstract: Like many scientific disciplines, neuroscience has increasingly attempted to confront pervasive gender imbalances within the field. While much of the conversation has centered around publishing and conference participation, recent research in other fields has called attention to the prevalence of gender bias in citation practices. Because of the downstream effects that citations can have on visibility and career advancement, understanding and eliminating gender bias in citation practices is vital for addressing inequity in a scientific community. In this study, we sought to determine whether there is evidence of gender bias in the citation practices of neuroscientists. Using data from five top neuroscience journals, we find that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender were not a factor in referencing. Importantly, we show that this overcitation of men and undercitation of women is driven largely by the citation practices of men, and is increasing over time as the field becomes more diverse. We develop a co-authorship network to assess homophily in researchers' social networks, and we find that men tend to overcite men even when their social networks are representative. We discuss possible mechanisms and consider how individual researchers might address these findings in their own practices.

Gender Imbalance in Neuroscience Citations: An Analysis of Citation Practices and Their Implications

Recent investigations into citation behaviors within the neuroscience community reveal significant gender imbalances. The paper "The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists" undertakes a comprehensive analysis of citation patterns in neuroscience journals to determine the pervasiveness and drivers of gender bias therein. The paper is motivated by broader concerns in science regarding systematic inequalities, especially those related to gender, and examines how these may be perpetuated through citational practices.

Methodology

The authors analyzed data from five leading neuroscience journals, including Nature Neuroscience and Neuron, focusing on articles published beginning in 1995. Citations were parsed to identify trends concerning the gender of authors. Gender was probabilistically assigned based on the likelihood that names belong to men or women, utilizing databases such as the Social Security Administration's dataset and Gender API. Using a combination of these probabilistic assignments and a generalized additive model (GAM), the paper controls for various non-gender-related factors that might influence citation rates, such as article type, seniority, and journal.

Findings

The analysis revealed a marked propensity for reference lists to contain citations to work authored by men disproportionately. Specifically, papers with men as both first and last authors were found to cite other men-led works significantly more often—notably more so than papers that had women in leadership positions. This tendency was quantified as an 8% overcitation of man-led papers relative to expectations derived from the model, with a significant undercitation rate of woman-led papers, particularly those with women as both first and last authors, by about 23%. It was also observed that this trend has been exacerbating over time, concurrently with the increasing diversification of the field—a paradoxical development indicating that gender representation among authors does not necessarily translate into equitable citation practices.

Social Network Analysis

The paper further regressed authors' citation behaviors on their social networks by constructing a co-authorship network. This revealed that gender homophily—the tendency of individuals to associate with others like themselves—plays a role in citation practices. However, these network effects only partially explain the observed gender citation biases, indicating that other factors, potentially including attitudinal biases, contribute to the preferential citation of man-led papers.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings highlight the necessity for heightened awareness regarding gender biases in citation practices among neuroscientists. The under-representation of women or woman-led research in citations not only influences perceptions of prominence and productivity but also carries potential implications for professional advancement and inclusion within the academic community.

The paper argues for conscientious corrective actions in citation practices—especially for scholars in positions of amplifying influence, such as journal reviewers and editors. Moreover, it calls for educational and structural shifts within academic culture to address implicit biases.

Further research might expand on these findings by exploring intersectional biases, such as those involving race and institutional prestige, and could also leverage more nuanced gender identification methods to better reflect non-binary and transgender scholars. It is crucial that future work continues to develop tools and methodologies that facilitate both the robust analysis of citational data and the implementation of equitable practices across different fields of scientific inquiry.

This paper underscores a pivotal point in ongoing discussions of equity in academia, demonstrating that achieving true gender balance is an intricate endeavor that will require sustained, collective efforts from individual researchers and institutions alike.