Quantitative Evaluation of Gender Bias in Astronomical Publications from Citation Counts (1610.08984v1)

Abstract: We analyze the role of first (leading) author gender on the number of citations that a paper receives, on the publishing frequency and on the self-citing tendency. We consider a complete sample of over 200,000 publications from 1950 to 2015 from five major astronomy journals. We determine the gender of the first author for over 70% of all publications. The fraction of papers which have a female first author has increased from less than 5% in the 1960s to about 25% today. We find that the increase of the fraction of papers authored by females is slowest in the most prestigious journals such as Science and Nature. Furthermore, female authors write 19$\pm$7% fewer papers in seven years following their first paper than their male colleagues. At all times papers with male first authors receive more citations than papers with female first authors. This difference has been decreasing with time and amounts to $\sim$6% measured over the last 30 years. To account for the fact that the properties of female and male first author papers differ intrinsically, we use a random forest algorithm to control for the non-gender specific properties of these papers which include seniority of the first author, number of references, total number of authors, year of publication, publication journal, field of study and region of the first author's institution. We show that papers authored by females receive 10.4$\pm$0.9% fewer citations than what would be expected if the papers with the same non-gender specific properties were written by the male authors. Finally, we also find that female authors in our sample tend to self-cite more, but that this effect disappears when controlled for non-gender specific variables.

• The paper finds that papers with female first authors receive roughly 10.4% fewer citations than expected.
• It employs a random forest algorithm to control for factors like seniority, author count, and journal, ensuring robust analysis.
• Despite increased female participation over decades, high-impact journals underrepresent female-led work, indicating systemic bias.

Gender and Citation Disparities in Astronomy Publications

This paper undertakes a quantitative evaluation of gender disparities in citation counts within the field of astronomy, grounded in a thorough analysis of over 200,000 publications from five major journals—Science, Nature, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society—produced between 1950 and 2015. The paper is concerned with evaluating the influence of the gender of first (or leading) authors on citation volume, publishing frequency, and self-citation tendencies.

The primary finding of the analysis is a persistent gender bias indicating that papers with female first authors receive fewer citations than those with male first authors. This disparity has been gradually decreasing over time; nevertheless, as of 2015, female-led papers received approximately 10.4% fewer citations than expected based on their non-gender-specific characteristics. This finding was derived using a random forest algorithm to control for variables beyond gender, such as seniority, number of references, total number of authors, field of paper, region of the author's institution, journal, and year of publication.

Several notable numerical outcomes underpin the analysis. First, despite a steady increase in the fraction of astronomy papers authored by women—from less than 5% in the 1960s to around 25% in 2015—female authors continue to be underrepresented in high-impact journals such as Science and Nature. Consequently, these journals, which merit the highest aggregate citations, may underreport female contributions. Furthermore, it is estimated that female authors publish 19% fewer papers within seven years of their first publication compared to males, establishing a potential link between gender, productivity, and subsequent citation disparities.

In investigating self-citation rates, the paper found that women tend to self-cite more, a difference attributable to non-gender-specific factors when machine learning techniques control citations. This conclusion nuances earlier observations about gender disparity in citation practices without wholly dispelling them, suggesting that self-citation rates alone do not account for the citation gap identified between genders.

The implications of these findings span both theoretical and practical dimensions. Thematically, the disparities could signify broader systemic biases within academic publishing and professional recognition in astronomy. Practically, addressing this bias may involve policy interventions or institutional changes to promote equitable representation and student-mentor practices, enhancing visibility and recognition for female researchers.

Looking ahead, the insights presented pave the way for further research into disciplinary citation dynamics, including the complex interplay between gender and other intersecting author characteristics. As data systems improve, ongoing digitization will no doubt facilitate increasingly granular analyses that probe deeper into demographic influences on scholarly impact across varied scientific domains.