The role of gender in scholarly authorship

Abstract: Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities re- reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can appear in scholarly authorship.

• The paper reveals that, despite balanced overall publication counts, women are significantly underrepresented in key authorship positions.
• The study utilizes a network-based community detection method and Social Security data to infer gender from eight million papers in the JSTOR corpus.
• The findings underscore persistent gender inequities that affect academic recognition and career advancement through authorship order.

An Analysis of Gender Inequity in Scholarly Authorship

The paper "The role of gender in scholarly authorship" presents a comprehensive examination of gender disparities within academic authorship, utilizing a vast dataset from the JSTOR corpus. The study is grounded on an analysis of over eight million papers spanning various disciplines, including the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. It investigates the dynamics of gender representation, with a keen focus on authorship order—a crucial factor in academic recognition and career progression.

The research dissects gender composition by analyzing authorship order, particularly in prominent positions such as first and last authors, where men are often predominant. Despite a superficial balance in raw publication counts, women are notably underrepresented as single authors and in prestigious positions. The implications are profound, impacting hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions, which are often influenced by authorship status.

Methods

A primary data source for the study is the JSTOR corpus, a digital archive encompassing a broad range of scholarly disciplines over several centuries. The authors employ a network-based community detection approach to hierarchically classify papers, allowing them to explore gender representation patterns across different fields. The study leverages U.S. Social Security Administration records to infer gender from first names, achieving an assignment for 73.3% of authors in the database.

The authors adopt the hierarchical map equation to articulate the topological structure of scientific fields within the JSTOR dataset. This methodology facilitates a nuanced understanding of how gender disparities manifest across various academic levels and subfields.

Results

The analysis reveals that, overall, women account for 21.9% of identified authorships. However, they are disproportionately absent from single-authored papers. This underrepresentation persists despite gains since the 1960s, particularly in fields such as molecular biology, where authorship order correlates with academic prestige. Women are unevenly distributed across author positions, with a notable underrepresentation in the last author roles, a trend indicative of a glass ceiling in academic leadership.

The paper also highlights variability across disciplines. For instance, fields with alphabetical authorship conventions, like mathematics, show less pronounced gender discrepancies in order. Nevertheless, a gender imbalance persists, reflecting broader systemic issues within academia.

Discussion

The study underscores the persistence of gender inequities despite increased female presence in academia. Although women have made substantial progress in achieving parity in educational attainment and early academic career stages, their representation in high-authority academic authorship roles remains limited. This gap can hinder career advancement due to the significant role academic publishing plays in professional evaluation.

Several mechanisms contribute to these disparities, including differences in collaborative research engagement, negotiation behaviors, and potential biases in the review process. The paper aligns with previous findings that suggest ongoing subtle biases against women within academic environments.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings necessitate continued efforts to address gender disparities in academia. Increased awareness and institutional initiatives targeting inequity, combined with a reevaluation of authorship attribution practices, could mitigate disparities. Future research could explore interventions and policies aimed at fostering an equitable academic landscape.

In conclusion, the research contributes valuable insights into the gender dynamics of academic authorship, illuminating areas requiring attention to promote gender equity in scholarship. As academia evolves, addressing these disparities remains paramount to harnessing the full potential of diverse intellectual contributions.