Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Women in academia: a warning on selection bias in gender studies from the astronomical perspective

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2012.09784 v1 pith:RLJHTGOE submitted 2020-12-04 physics.soc-ph astro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph

classification physics.soc-phastro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph
keywords selectionacademiafemalebiasbiasesmentorshipstudieswomen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent paper by AlShebli et al. (2020) investigates the impact of mentorship in young scientists. Among their conclusions, they state that female prot\'eg\'es benefit more from male than female mentorship. We herein expose a critical flaw in their methodological design that is a common issue in Astronomy, namely "selection biases". An effect that if not treated properly may lead to unwarranted causality claims. In their analysis, selection biases seem to be present in the response rate of their survey (8.35%), the choice of database, success criterion, and the overlook of the numerous drawbacks female researchers face in academia. We discuss these issues and their implications -- one of them being the potential increase in obstacles for women in academia. Finally, we reinforce the dangers of not considering selection bias effects in studies aimed at retrieving causal relations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools