Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that unreliable author name disambiguation and gender identification methods undermine gender-bias bibliometrics, and proposes a SoDA Cards framework for standardized reporting.

desk verdict A genuinely useful review of methodological variability in gender-bias bibliometrics with a smart reporting template, though the claim that variability breaks comparability is asserted more than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18129 v1 pith:YX2S2WLH submitted 2025-01-30 cs.DL cs.AIcs.SI

HaeJin Lee , Shubhanshu Mishra , Apratim Mishra , Zhiwen You , Jinseok Kim , Jana Diesner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DLcs.AIcs.SI
keywords genderbiasbibliometricsauthornamedisambiguationidentificationSoDACardsscholarlydataanalysismethodologicalstandardizationreproducibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Gender-bias bibliometrics rests on two error-prone data-processing steps, deciding which author is which and deciding each author's gender, and this review of 70 studies argues that current practice is too varied to support reliable, comparable conclusions. More than half of the sampled studies (51.4%) performed no author name disambiguation, and 64.3% relied on a single gender-identification method, with name-based heuristics the most common choice. The paper's remedy is the Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Card, a structured reporting template that documents how names were disambiguated, how gender was assigned, how unknown labels were handled, and which causal factors were controlled. If the field adopts the cards, individual findings become easier to compare and aggregate, which the paper argues is a prerequisite for evidence-informed policy on gender inequality in academia.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Card, a structured reporting template with sections for study specification, corpus profile, author name disambiguation, gender identification, analysis, and results. It works by requiring explicit answers to questions that most reviewed studies leave implicit: which disambiguation method was used and whether it was evaluated, which name part fed gender inference, which gender categories were allowed, what share of authors stayed unidentified, how unknown labels were handled, and which causal factors such as career length were controlled. The card rests on the paper's annotation taxonomy, which sorts disambiguation into five categories and gender identification into four, and on the annotation process that produced inter-annotator agreement of 0.71-0.85 (Cohen's kappa) before discrepancies were resolved to full consensus.

What would settle it

Apply the authors' own codebook to a broader unselected corpus of gender-and-citation studies, including preprints and low-citation work: if the method distribution clusters on one or two dominant approaches, the no-consensus claim is falsified. A second test: re-run one landmark gender-bias dataset through every combination of disambiguation and gender-identification method; if the conclusion about gender bias is unchanged across all combinations, the practical urgency of standardization weakens substantially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the methodological pipeline, not just the finding, determines what gender-bias bibliometrics can say. In a curated sample of 70 peer-reviewed works from 2009 to 2023, the paper finds no dominant standard: 51.4% of papers did no author name disambiguation and analyzed authorship-level records, 21.4% used algorithmic disambiguation, 12.9% name-based heuristics, 10.0% manual searches, and 4.3% gold-standard identity data. For gender identification, 64.3% of papers used a single method, name-based heuristics were the most frequent approach (41 of 98 counted method-instances, 41.8%), and gold-standard self-reported gender was used least often. The paper argues that this variability, combined with the documented difficulty of Asian names and the common practice of dropping authors with unassignable gender, makes existing results hard to compare, and it proposes the SoDA Card as a documentation standard to fix that.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 70 highly cited, keyword-matched, peer-reviewed papers represent the field as a whole; if the many papers with fewer citations or non-matching keywords actually share a common methodology, the 'no consensus' finding loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Studies that fill a SoDA Card become directly comparable, enabling meta-analyses that aggregate gender-gap effect sizes instead of stacking incompatible pipelines.
  • Journal and funder adoption of the card would create longitudinal records of which methods dominate, letting the field track whether practice is improving.
  • The card requires reporting the percentage of unidentified gender and how unknown labels were handled, making the disproportionate exclusion of Asian or unisex names visible rather than silent.
  • Reliable estimates of where gender bias does and does not exist are the basis for policy interventions, so the card indirectly strengthens evidence-based decision-making.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the disclosure requirement itself may improve data quality, because researchers who must report 'no disambiguation performed' face pressure to justify it.
  • Beyond the paper: a natural test is to apply SoDA Cards retrospectively to the 70 reviewed papers; the result would be a reusable benchmark of pipeline choices that future gender-bias studies could control for.
  • Beyond the paper: the four gender-identification types do not capture every tool's internal behavior, so a practical extension would require recording tool name, version, and parameter settings, since two tools both labeled 'algorithmic' can disagree on the same name.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reviews 70 peer-reviewed publications from 2009-2023 on gender bias in bibliometrics, annotating author name disambiguation (AND) and gender identification methods with a codebook and Cohen's kappa. The main empirical finding is that 51.4% of sampled papers performed no AND and 64.3% used a single gender identification method, with name-based heuristics being the most frequent approach. Based on this variability, the authors argue that methodological inconsistencies limit reliability and comparability, and they propose Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards, a reporting template adapted from Model Cards and Datasheets, to standardize documentation of data sources, AND, gender identification, causal controls, and results.

Significance. If the empirical distribution is reliable, the paper provides a useful, systematically annotated map of current methodological practice in a policy-relevant area. The SoDA Cards proposal is a concrete, low-cost transparency mechanism that the bibliometrics community could adopt, and the paper is commendable for publishing its codebook, inter-annotator agreement scores, and a filled example card. However, the contribution's central premise—that observed variability undermines reliability and comparability—is not directly tested, and internal inconsistencies in the reported percentages weaken the quantitative evidence. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a sensitivity analysis or a more measured framing of the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2.1, Table 3] The percentages reported in the text and in Table 3 are internally inconsistent: heuristics are reported as 42.27% in the text but as 41.84% (41/98) in the table; manual search appears as 23.71% in the text but as 22.45% (22/98) in the table; algorithm appears as 18.56% in the text but as 18.37% (18/98) in the table; and gold standards is reported as 15.46% although the table's own count of 17/98 equals 17.35%. These discrepancies directly affect the paper's central descriptive claims and must be reconciled.
  2. [4.1.1, 4.2.1, abstract] The paper asserts that methodological variability 'limits reliability and comparability,' but no analysis in the manuscript demonstrates this. The distribution of methods establishes heterogeneity, and the cited prior work (e.g., [38], [76]) shows that individual methods can be error-prone, but there is no evidence that the studies' conclusions about gender bias would change under alternative AND or gender-identification methods. Since the urgency of the SoDA Cards proposal rests on this premise, the paper should either provide a sensitivity analysis on a subset of the reviewed papers or explicitly reframe the claim as a hypothesis requiring further study.
  3. [3.1, Appendix A.1] The sampling procedure is not reported in sufficient detail for the review to be reproducible: the exact Google Scholar query strings, retrieval dates, screening workflow, and counts of excluded papers are absent, and the assertion that 'most citations of these influential papers utilize similar methodological practices' is not backed by citation data. This is important because the representativeness of the 70-paper sample underpins the headline distributions in Tables 2 and 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4 heading] The heading 'Gender idenitfication' contains a typo; it should read 'Gender identification.'
  2. [Figures 6 and 7] The field labels contain spacing artifacts such as 'T emporal scope' and 'Geographical scope' with a space before 'scope'; additionally, the filled example in Figure 6 is labeled 'Model Card example' although the paper introduces it as a SoDA Card, which should be consistent.
  3. [Section 3.1] The text states the sample covers papers 'published between 2009 to 2023' and the title says 'past 12 years,' but Figure 3 shows a distribution starting in 2010; this is a minor inconsistency that should be corrected.
  4. [Table 2] The gold standard row reports 4.28% for 3/70, which should be 4.29% for consistency with the other rounded percentages.
  5. [Section 4.2.3] The sentence 'This, combined with the difficulty in inferring gender from Asian names, led them to exclude researchers from China ... and Singapore' would benefit from a citation to the specific passage in [35], as the current text paraphrases without a page or section reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's descriptive review and SoDA Cards proposal are self-contained, and its self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is the distribution of author name disambiguation and gender identification methods across 70 reviewed papers: 51.4% did no disambiguation and 64.3% used a single gender-identification method (Tables 2 and 3). These numbers come from the authors' own annotation of external papers, with inter-annotator agreement reported via Cohen's kappa (Section 3.3), not from any equation fitted to the paper's inputs. The five-way AND taxonomy and four-way gender-identification taxonomy in Table 1 are coding categories defined for annotation; applying a codebook to external studies is not circular because no conclusion is defined in terms of the codebook's own output. Self-citations such as [38], [58], and [102] appear as examples of prior findings about name-disambiguation distortions, self-citation patterns, and binary gender-label limitations. These are used as supporting evidence, not as a justification that assumes the paper's conclusion. The SoDA Cards framework is proposed as a remedy; its effectiveness is not tested, and the paper acknowledges this in its Limitations section by noting sample-size constraints and the selection of highly cited papers. The skeptical concern that no sensitivity analysis links methodological variation to different gender-bias conclusions is a valid question about evidential support for the 'limits reliability and comparability' premise, but it is not a circularity: the variability itself is independently documented from the corpus, and the inference from variability to reliability concerns is an argumentative step, not a definitional or fitted equivalence. No equation or derived quantity in the paper reduces to a parameter fitted from the target claim, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the framework's design. The overall derivation chain is therefore self-contained with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, yielding a score of 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central survey claims rest on sampling and taxonomy choices rather than mathematical derivations. The most important axioms are the representativeness of the Google Scholar citation-prioritized sample and the completeness of the codebook categories; neither is externally validated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Google Scholar keyword searches and citation-count prioritization yield a representative corpus of impactful gender-bias bibliometric studies.
    Section 3.1 states papers were selected by these criteria; the review's distributions and 'no consensus' conclusion depend on this representativeness.
  • domain assumption The codebook taxonomy (five AND categories, four gender identification categories) spans the real method space used in the literature.
    Section 3.2 and Table 1 define the categories; annotation reliability is measured within this taxonomy, but the taxonomy itself is untested.
  • standard math Interrater kappa values of 0.71 to 0.85 indicate sufficient agreement.
    Section 3.3 uses Cohen's kappa thresholds from [81] and [55]; this is a conventional but arbitrary threshold.
  • domain assumption Highly cited papers are frequently referenced for their methodological contributions, so their methods reflect dominant practice.
    Section 3.1 states that most citations of influential papers utilize similar methodological practices; the Limitations section also relies on this claim.
invented entities (1)
  • Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards
    purpose: Provide a standardized template for reporting corpus, author name disambiguation, gender identification, analysis controls, and results in bibliometric gender bias studies.
    Introduced in Section 5 and Figures 6 and 7. They are a proposed artifact with no pilot validation, external evaluation, or falsifiable prediction, so there is no independent evidence yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YX2S2WLH

@misc{pith2026250118129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YX2S2WLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18129}
}
read the original abstract

Gender biases in scholarly metrics remain a persistent concern, despite numerous bibliometric studies exploring their presence and absence across productivity, impact, acknowledgment, and self-citations. However, methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies, potentially perpetuating misperceptions and hindering effective interventions. A review of 70 relevant publications over the past 12 years reveals a wide range of approaches, from name-based and manual searches to more algorithmic and gold-standard methods, with no clear consensus on best practices. This variability, compounded by challenges such as accurately disambiguating Asian names and managing unassigned gender labels, underscores the urgent need for standardized and robust methodologies. To address this critical gap, we propose the development and implementation of ``Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards." These cards will provide a structured framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, SoDA Cards will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings, ultimately supporting evidence-informed policymaking and enabling the longitudinal tracking of analytical approaches in the study of gender and other social biases in academia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18129 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A principled approach for conducting demographic bias analysis for scholarly data re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Difference between author and authorship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of selected papers There has been significant research on various dimensions of demographic biases in scholarly work in recent years. We employed the following sampling method to retrieve papers likely to have influenced the study of demographic biases in scholarly research: • Identify papers to include in the review by searching Google Scholar with the keywords (in Appendix A.1). These keywords cover a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Author Name Disambiguation Methods Distribution Barchart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Gender Identification Methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Model Card example 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model Card template 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks

    Jinseok Kim and Jana Diesner. Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Informa- tion Science and Technology, 67(6):1446–1461, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23489. 23

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.23489 2016

  2. [76]

    Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services

    Luc ´ ıa Santamar ´ ıa and Helena Mihaljevi´ c. Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science , 4:e156, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system

    Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, and Alessandro Caprasecca. Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Sciento- metrics, 79(3):517–539, June 2009. ISSN 1588-2861. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8

    doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8 2009

  4. [2]

    Limited progress in improving gender and geographic representation in coral reef science

    Gabby N Ahmadia, Samantha H Cheng, Dominic A Andradi-Brown, Stacy K Baez, Megan D Barnes, Nathan J Bennett, Stuart J Campbell, Emily S Darling, Estradivari, David Gill, et al. Limited progress in improving gender and geographic representation in coral reef science. Frontiers in Marine Science , 8:731037, 2021

    2021

  5. [3]

    Fast facts: Academia, 2024

    American Association of University Women (AAUW). Fast facts: Academia, 2024. URL https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/. Accessed: 2024-12- 12

    2024

  6. [4]

    Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science

    Pierre Azoulay and Freda Lynn. Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science. Sociological Science, 7:152–186, 2020. ISSN 23306696. doi: 10.15195/v7.a7. URL https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-v7-7-152/

    work page doi:10.15195/v7.a7 2020

  7. [5]

    Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator

    Paola Belingheri, Filippo Chiarello, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, and Paola Rovelli. Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. Plos one, 16(9):e0256474, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256474 2021

  8. [6]

    Gen- der disparities in high-quality research revealed by nature index journals

    Michael HK Bendels, Ruth M¨ uller, Doerthe Brueggmann, and David A Groneberg. Gen- der disparities in high-quality research revealed by nature index journals. PloS one , 13(1): e0189136, 2018

    2018

Show all 107 references
  1. [7]

    Gender disparities in authorships and citations in transplantation research

    Stan Benjamens, Louise BD Banning, Tamar AJ van den Berg, and Robert A Pol. Gender disparities in authorships and citations in transplantation research. Transplantation direct, 6 (11), 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts

    Neven Caplar, Sandro Tacchella, and Simon Birrer. Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nature Astronomy, 1(6):1–5, May 2017. ISSN 2397-3366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0141. URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/...

    2017 doi

  3. [9]

    Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral? The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 135(1):269–327, 2020

    David Card, Stefano DellaVigna, Patricia Funk, and Nagore Iriberri. Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral? The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 135(1):269–327, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    Gender bias in academic recruitment? evidence from a survey experiment in the nordic region

    Magnus Carlsson, Henning Finseraas, Arnfinn H Midtbøen, and Gu ðbj¨ org Linda Rafnsd´ ottir. Gender bias in academic recruitment? evidence from a survey experiment in the nordic region. European Sociological Review, 37(3):399–410, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the national faculty survey

    Phyllis L Carr, Anita Raj, Samantha E Kaplan, Norma Terrin, Janis L Breeze, and Karen M Freund. Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the national faculty survey. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medi...

    2018

  6. [12]

    Gender comparisons of social work faculty using h-index scores

    T Edison Carter, Thomas E Smith, and Philip J Osteen. Gender comparisons of social work faculty using h-index scores. Scientometrics, 111:1547–1557, 2017. 21

    2017

  7. [13]

    Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in stem

    Bettina J Casad, Jillian E Franks, Christina E Garasky, Melinda M Kittleman, Alanna C Roesler, Deidre Y Hall, and Zachary W Petzel. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in stem. Journal of neuroscience research, 99(1):13–23, 2021. doi: 10.100...

    2021 doi

  8. [14]

    Paula Chatterjee and Rachel M. Werner. Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles. JAMA Network Open , 4(7):e2114509, July 2021. ISSN 2574-3805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509. URL https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2021.14509

    2021

  9. [15]

    Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases

    Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Rose Markus. Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6):1022, 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales

    Jacob Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1):37–46, 1960

    1960

  11. [17]

    2023 cra taulbee survey report, 2024

    Computing Research Association (CRA). 2023 cra taulbee survey report, 2024. URL https: //cra.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-CRA-Taulbee-Survey-Report.pdf . Ac- cessed: 2024-12-12

    2023

  12. [18]

    Lack of gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochronologists: What is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Research, 66(2):127–133, 2010

    Carolyn A Copenheaver, Kyrille Goldbeck, and Paolo Cherubini. Lack of gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochronologists: What is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Research, 66(2):127–133, 2010

    2010

  13. [19]

    Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields

    Michelle L Dion, Jane Lawrence Sumner, and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. Political analysis, 26 (3):312–327, 2018

    2018

  14. [20]

    For the misgendered chinese in gender bias research: Multi-task learning with knowledge distillation for pinyin name gender prediction

    Xiaocong Du and Haipeng Zhang. For the misgendered chinese in gender bias research: Multi-task learning with knowledge distillation for pinyin name gender prediction. In Kate Larson, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intellige...

    2024 doi

  15. [21]

    Dworkin, Kristin A

    Jordan D. Dworkin, Kristin A. Linn, Erin G. Teich, Perry Zurn, Russell T. Shinohara, and Danielle S. Bassett. The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8):918–926, August 2020. ISSN 1546-1726. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1...

    2020

  16. [22]

    Gender differences in author- ships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal

    Hannah A Edwards, Julia Schroeder, and Hannah L Dugdale. Gender differences in author- ships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal. PLoS One, 13(8): e0201725, 2018

    2018

  17. [23]

    Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within aca- demic otolaryngology departments

    Jean Anderson Eloy, Peter Svider, Sujana S Chandrasekhar, Qasim Husain, Kevin M Mauro, Michael Setzen, and Soly Baredes. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within aca- demic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngology–head and neck surgery , 148(2):215–222, 2013

    2013

  18. [24]

    Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014)

    Giovanni Filardo, Briget Da Graca, Danielle M Sass, Benjamin D Pollock, Emma B Smith, and Melissa Ashley-Marie Martinez. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). bmj, 352, 2016. 22

    1994

  19. [25]

    Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

    Charles W Fox, Josiah P Ritchey, and CE Timothy Paine. Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and evolution , 8(23):11492–11507, 2018

    2018

  20. [26]

    Gender (im) balance in citation practices in cognitive neuroscience

    Jacqueline M Fulvio, Ileri Akinnola, and Bradley R Postle. Gender (im) balance in citation practices in cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 33(1):3–7, 2021

    2021

  21. [27]

    Comparison of the contri- butions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: a cross-sectional study

    Angele Gayet-Ageron, Antoine Poncet, and Thomas Perneger. Comparison of the contri- butions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 9(2):e024436, 2019

    2000

  22. [28]

    Datasheets for datasets

    Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daum´ e Iii, and Kate Crawford. Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12):86–92, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723

    2021 doi

  23. [29]

    Contemporary psychology and women: A gender analysis of the scientific production

    Julio Gonz´ alez-´Alvarez and Teresa Cervera-Crespo. Contemporary psychology and women: A gender analysis of the scientific production. International Journal of Psychology , 54(1): 135–143, 2019

    2019

  24. [30]

    Giummarra

    Michaela Guthridge, Maggie Kirkman, Tania Penovic, and Melita J. Giummarra. Promoting Gender Equality: A Systematic Review of Interventions. Social Justice Research, 35(3):318– 343, September 2022. ISSN 0885-7466, 1573-6725. doi: 10.1007/s11211-022-00398-z. URL https://link.sp...

    2022 doi

  25. [31]

    Women are underrepresented and receive differential outcomes at asm journals: a six-year retrospective analysis

    Ada K Hagan, Beg¨ um D Top¸ cuo˘ glu, Mia E Gregory, Hazel A Barton, and Patrick D Schloss. Women are underrepresented and receive differential outcomes at asm journals: a six-year retrospective analysis. MBio, 11(6):10–1128, 2020

    2020

  26. [32]

    Explaining gender differences in academics’ career trajectories

    Aniko Hannak, Kenneth Joseph, Andrei Cimpian, and Daniel B Larremore. Explaining gender differences in academics’ career trajectories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10830 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder

    Madeline E Heilman. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of social issues , 57(4):657–674, 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234

    2001

  28. [34]

    The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS biology, 16(4):e2004956, 2018

    Luke Holman, Devi Stuart-Fox, and Cindy E Hauser. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS biology, 16(4):e2004956, 2018

    2018

  29. [35]

    Gates, Roberta Sinatra, and Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi

    Junming Huang, Alexander J. Gates, Roberta Sinatra, and Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(9):4609–4616, March 2020. doi: 10.10...

    2020 doi

  30. [36]

    Covid-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing

    Dariusz Jemielniak, Agnieszka S lawska, and Maciej Wilamowski. Covid-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing. Journal of Information Science , 49(6):1587–1592, 2023

    2023

  31. [37]

    The effect of data pre-processing on understanding the evolution of collaboration networks

    Jinseok Kim and Jana Diesner. The effect of data pre-processing on understanding the evolution of collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics , 9(1):226–236, 2015

    2015

  32. [39]

    The impact of name ambiguity on properties of coauthorship networks

    Jinseok Kim, Heejun Kim, and Jana Diesner. The impact of name ambiguity on properties of coauthorship networks. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice , 2(2):6–15, 2014

    2014

  33. [40]

    King and Megan E

    Molly M. King and Megan E. Frederickson. The Pandemic Penalty: The Gen- dered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World , 7:237802312110069, January 2021. ISSN 2378-0231, 2378-0231. doi: 10.1177/23780231211006977. URL htt...

    2021 doi

  34. [41]

    King, Carl T

    Molly M. King, Carl T. Bergstrom, Shelley J. Correll, Jennifer Jacquet, and Jevin D. West. Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World , 3:237802311773890, January 2017. ISSN 2378- 0231, ...

    2017 doi

  35. [42]

    Influence of the first-mover advantage on the gender disparities in physics citations

    Hyunsik Kong, Samuel Martin-Gutierrez, and Fariba Karimi. Influence of the first-mover advantage on the gender disparities in physics citations. Communications Physics, 5(1):243, 2022

    2022

  36. [43]

    Inter- sectional inequalities in science

    Diego Kozlowski, Vincent Larivi` ere, Cassidy R Sugimoto, and Thema Monroe-White. Inter- sectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 119(2): e2113067119, 2022

    2022

  37. [44]

    Andrea S. Kramer. Beyond Bias: How to Fix the System, Not the Symptoms of Gender Inequality at Work . John Murray Press, 2023. URL https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/ beyond-bias-how-to-fix-the-system-not-the-symptoms-of-gender-inequality-at-work-andrea-s-kramer/ 7445884

    2023

  38. [45]

    Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Qu´ ebec university professors

    Vincent Larivi` ere, Etienne Vignola-Gagn´ e, Christian Villeneuve, Pascal G´ elinas, and Yves Gingras. Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Qu´ ebec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3):483–498, June 2011. ISSN 0138-9130, 1588-2...

    2011 doi

  39. [46]

    Sugimoto

    Vincent Larivi` ere, Chaoqun Ni, Yves Gingras, Blaise Cronin, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479):211–213, December

  40. [47]

    Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study

    Marc J Lerchenmueller, Olav Sorenson, and Anupam B Jena. Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. bmj, 367, 2019

    2019

  41. [48]

    Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors

    Fengyuan Liu, Petter Holme, Matteo Chiesa, Bedoor AlShebli, and Talal Rahwan. Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors. Nature Human Be- haviour, 7(3):353–364, January 2023. ISSN 2397-3374. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01498-1. URL https://www.nature...

    2023 doi

  42. [49]

    Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition

    Jeffrey W Lockhart, Molly M King, and Christin Munsch. Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition. Nature Human Behaviour , 7(7):1084–1095, 2023. 24

    2023

  43. [50]

    The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

    Lauren A Maggio, Joseph A Costello, Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Jason R Frank, and An- thony R Artino Jr. The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape. Medical education, 57(3):280–289, 2023

    2023

  44. [51]

    Daniel Maliniak, Ryan Powers, and Barbara F. Walter. The Gender Cita- tion Gap in International Relations. International Organization , 67(4):889–922, October 2013. ISSN 0020-8183, 1531-5088. doi: 10.1017/S0020818313000209. URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/internati...

    2013 doi

  45. [52]

    How does research productivity relate to gender? analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions

    Sabrina J Mayer and Justus MK Rathmann. How does research productivity relate to gender? analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics, 117(3): 1663–1693, 2018

    2018

  46. [53]

    Sex differences in academic rank and publication rate at top-ranked us neurology programs

    Mollie McDermott, Douglas J Gelb, Kelsey Wilson, Megan Pawloski, James F Burke, Anita V Shelgikar, and Zachary N London. Sex differences in academic rank and publication rate at top-ranked us neurology programs. Jama Neurology, 75(8):956–961, 2018

    2018

  47. [54]

    What’s in a name? the frequency and geographic distributions of uk surnames

    Fiona McElduff, Pablo Mateos, Angie Wade, and Mario Cortina Borja. What’s in a name? the frequency and geographic distributions of uk surnames. Significance, 5(4):189–192, 2008

    2008

  48. [55]

    Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

    Mary L McHugh. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3):276–282, 2012

    2012

  49. [56]

    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals

    Rebekah Merriman, Ilaria Galizia, Sonja Tanaka, Ashley Sheffel, Kent Buse, and Sarah Hawkes. The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals. BMJ global health, 6(5):e005672, 2021

    2021

  50. [57]

    The effect of gender in the publication patterns in mathematics

    Helena Mihaljevi´ c-Brandt, Luc ´ ıa Santamar ´ ıa, and Marco Tullney. The effect of gender in the publication patterns in mathematics. PLoS One, 11(10):e0165367, 2016

    2016

  51. [58]

    Fegley, Jana Diesner, and Vetle I

    Shubhanshu Mishra, Brent D. Fegley, Jana Diesner, and Vetle I. Torvik. Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender. PLOS ONE, 13(9):e0195773, September 2018. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195773. URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0195773

    2018 doi

  52. [59]

    Model cards for model reporting

    Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and trans- parency, pages 220–22...

    2019

  53. [60]

    Mohammad

    Saif M. Mohammad. Gender gap in natural language processing research: Disparities in authorship and citations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 7860–7870, Online, July 2020. Association for Computa- tional Lingu...

    2020 doi

  54. [61]

    Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science

    Mary C Murphy, Amanda F Mejia, Jorge Mejia, Xiaoran Yan, Sapna Cheryan, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Mesmin Destin, Stephanie A Fryberg, Julie A Garcia, Elizabeth L Haines, et al. Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science. Proceedings ...

    2020

  55. [62]

    The gendered nature of authorship

    Chaoqun Ni, Elise Smith, Haimiao Yuan, Vincent Larivi` ere, and Cassidy R Sugimoto. The gendered nature of authorship. Science advances, 7(36):eabe4639, 2021

    2021

  56. [63]

    Gender inequality and research performance: moving beyond individual-meritocratic explanations of academic advancement

    Mathias Wullum Nielsen. Gender inequality and research performance: moving beyond individual-meritocratic explanations of academic advancement. Studies in Higher Education , 41(11):2044–2060, November 2016. ISSN 0307-5079. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1007945. URL https://doi.or...

    2016

  57. [64]

    Three decades of tourism scholarship: Gender, collaboration and research methods

    Robin Nunkoo, Michael Thelwall, Jeynakshi Ladsawut, and Sandhiya Goolaup. Three decades of tourism scholarship: Gender, collaboration and research methods. Tourism management, 78:104056, 2020

    2020

  58. [65]

    Darko Odic and Erica H. Wojcik. The publication gender gap in psychology. Ameri- can Psychologist, 75(1):92–103, January 2020. ISSN 1935-990X, 0003-066X. doi: 10.1037/ amp0000480. URL http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/amp0000480

    2020 doi

  59. [66]

    Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? publication patterns and citation rates for journal of peace research, 1983–2008

    Gudrun Østby, H ˚ avard Strand, Ragnhild Nord ˚ as, and Nils Petter Gleditsch. Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? publication patterns and citation rates for journal of peace research, 1983–2008. International Studies Perspectives , 14(4):493–506, 2013

    1983

  60. [67]

    Gender and geographical disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience

    Eleanor R Palser, Maia Lazerwitz, and Aikaterini Fotopoulou. Gender and geographical disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 25(3):272–279, 2022

    2022

  61. [68]

    Gender disparities in Russian academia: a bibliometric analysis

    Marina Pilkina and Andrey Lovakov. Gender disparities in Russian academia: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 127(6):3577–3591, June 2022. ISSN 1588-2861. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-022-04383-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04383-w

    2022 doi

  62. [69]

    Do women undertake in- terdisciplinary research more than men, and do self-citations bias observed differ- ences? Quantitative Science Studies , 3(2):363–392, June 2022

    Henrique Pinheiro, Matt Durning, and David Campbell. Do women undertake in- terdisciplinary research more than men, and do self-citations bias observed differ- ences? Quantitative Science Studies , 3(2):363–392, June 2022. ISSN 2641-3337. doi: 10.1162/qss a 00191. URL https://...

    2022 doi

  63. [70]

    Gender disparity among leaders of canadian academic radiology departments

    Sadia Raheez Qamar, Kiran Khurshid, Sabeena Jalal, Matthew DF McInnes, Linda Probyn, Karen Finlay, Cameron J Hague, Rebecca M Hibbert, Manish Joshi, Frank J Rybicki, et al. Gender disparity among leaders of canadian academic radiology departments. American Journal of Roentgeno...

    2020

  64. [71]

    Longitudinal analysis of gender differences in academic productivity among medical faculty across 24 medical schools in the united states

    Anita Raj, Phyllis L Carr, Samantha E Kaplan, Norma Terrin, Janis L Breeze, and Karen M Freund. Longitudinal analysis of gender differences in academic productivity among medical faculty across 24 medical schools in the united states. Academic medicine: journal of the Associat...

    2016

  65. [72]

    Gender Bias in the News: A Scalable Topic Modelling and Visualization Framework

    Prashanth Rao and Maite Taboada. Gender Bias in the News: A Scalable Topic Modelling and Visualization Framework. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4:664737, June 2021. ISSN 2624-8212. doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.664737. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 10.3389/frai.20...

    2021

  66. [73]

    Why status matters for inequality

    Cecilia L Ridgeway. Why status matters for inequality. American sociological review, 79(1): 1–16, 2014. 26

    2014

  67. [74]

    Ross, Britta M

    Matthew B. Ross, Britta M. Glennon, Raviv Murciano-Goroff, Enrico G. Berkes, Bruce A. Weinberg, and Julia I. Lane. Women are credited less in science than men.Nature, 608(7921): 135–145, August 2022. ISSN 0028-0836, 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w. URL https://www.n...

    2022 doi

  68. [75]

    Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology

    Patricia E Salerno, M´ onica P´ aez-Vacas, Juan M Guayasamin, and Jennifer L Stynoski. Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology. PloS one, 14(6):e0218598, 2019

    2019

  69. [77]

    Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services

    Luc ´ ıa Santamar ´ ıa and Helena Mihaljevi´ c. Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science , 4:e156, July 2018. ISSN 2376-5992. doi: 10. 7717/peerj-cs.156. URL https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    The changing face of epidemiology: gender disparities in citations? Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 28(2):159, 2017

    Enrique F Schisterman, Chandra W Swanson, Ya-Ling Lu, and Sunni L Mumford. The changing face of epidemiology: gender disparities in citations? Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 28(2):159, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applica- tions, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Karen B Schmaling and Stephen A Gallo. Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applica- tions, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research integrity and peer review, 8(1):2, 2023

    2023

  72. [80]

    Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap

    Helen Shen. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature News, 495(7439):22, 2013

    2013

  73. [81]

    The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements

    Julius Sim and Chris C Wright. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical therapy, 85(3):257–268, 2005

    2005

  74. [82]

    Peer re- view and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals

    Flaminio Squazzoni, Giangiacomo Bravo, Mike Farjam, Ana Marusic, Bahar Mehmani, Michael Willis, Aliaksandr Birukou, Pierpaolo Dondio, and Francisco Grimaldo. Peer re- view and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals. Science advances, 7(2):eabd0299, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic

    Flaminio Squazzoni, Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Daniel Garc ´ ıa-Costa, Mike Farjam, and Bahar Mehmani. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic. a study on 2329 elsevier journals. PloS one, 16(10): e0257919, 2021

    2021

  76. [84]

    Gender differences in publication productivity among academic scientists and engineers in the us and china: similarities and differences

    Yu Tao, Wei Hong, and Ying Ma. Gender differences in publication productivity among academic scientists and engineers in the us and china: similarities and differences. Minerva, 55:459–484, 2017

    2017

  77. [85]

    Teich, Jason Z

    Erin G. Teich, Jason Z. Kim, Christopher W. Lynn, Samantha C. Simon, Andrei A. Klishin, Karol P. Szymula, Pragya Srivastava, Lee C. Bassett, Perry Zurn, Jordan D. Dworkin, and Dani S. Bassett. Citation inequity and gendered citation practices in contemporary physics. Nature Ph...

    2022

  78. [86]

    Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014

    Mike Thelwall. Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014. Quantitative Science Studies , 1(2):599–617, 2020. 27

    1996

  79. [87]

    Gender disparities in invited commentary authorship in 2459 medical journals

    Emma G Thomas, Bamini Jayabalasingham, Tom Collins, Jeroen Geertzen, Chinh Bui, and Francesca Dominici. Gender disparities in invited commentary authorship in 2459 medical journals. JAMA network open , 2(10):e1913682–e1913682, 2019

    2019

  80. [88]

    Gendec: A machine learning-based framework for gender detection from japanese names

    Duong Tien Pham and Luan Thanh Nguyen. Gendec: A machine learning-based framework for gender detection from japanese names. In International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications , pages 235–244. Springer, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Ethnea–an instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database

    Vetle I Torvik and Sneha Agarwal. Ethnea–an instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database. 2016

    2016

  82. [90]

    Gender identification in chinese names

    Jeroen Van de Weijer, Guangyuan Ren, Joost van de Weijer, Weiyun Wei, and Yumeng Wang. Gender identification in chinese names. Lingua, 234:102759, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study

    Peter Van den Besselaar and Ulf Sandstr¨ om. Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics, 106:143–162, 2016

    2016

  84. [92]

    Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact

    Peter Van den Besselaar and Ulf Sandstr¨ om. Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PloS one , 12(8):e0183301, 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    Gender differences in authorship of critical care literature

    Kelly C Vranas, David Ouyang, Amber L Lin, Christopher G Slatore, Donald R Sullivan, Meeta Prasad Kerlin, Kathleen D Liu, Rebecca M Baron, Carolyn S Calfee, Lorraine B Ware, et al. Gender differences in authorship of critical care literature. American journal of respiratory an...

    2020

  86. [94]

    Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work

    Orsolya V´ as´ arhelyi, Igor Zakhlebin, Staˇ sa Milojevi´ c, and Em˝ oke-´Agnes Horv´ at. Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(39):e2102945118, September 2021. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10....

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    X. Wang, J. D. Dworkin, D. Zhou, J. Stiso, E. B. Falk, D. S. Bassett, P. Zurn, and D. M. Lydon-Staley. Gendered citation practices in the field of communica- tion. Annals of the International Communication Association , 45(2):134–153, April

  88. [96]

    The role of gender in scholarly authorship

    Jevin D West, Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M King, Shelley J Correll, and Carl T Bergstrom. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PloS one , 8(7):e66212, 2013

    2013

  89. [97]

    National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on stem tenure track

    Wendy M Williams and Stephen J Ceci. National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on stem tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17):5360–5365, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112

    2015 doi

  90. [98]

    The gender citation gap: Approaches, explanations, and implications

    Cary Wu. The gender citation gap: Approaches, explanations, and implications. Sociol- ogy Compass , 18(2):e13189, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13189. URL https: //compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soc4.13189

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research.PLoS One, 15(4):e0230043, 2020

    Cary Wu, Sylvia Fuller, Zhilei Shi, and Rima Wilkes. The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research.PLoS One, 15(4):e0230043, 2020. 28

    2020

  92. [100]

    Trends in female authorship in major journals of 3 oncology disciplines, 2002-2018

    Anirudh Yalamanchali, Emily S Zhang, and Reshma Jagsi. Trends in female authorship in major journals of 3 oncology disciplines, 2002-2018. JAMA Network Open , 4(4):e212252– e212252, 2021

    2002

  93. [101]

    Gender- diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas

    Yang Yang, Tanya Y Tian, Teresa K Woodruff, Benjamin F Jones, and Brian Uzzi. Gender- diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 119(36):e2200841119, 2022

    2022

  94. [102]

    Beyond binary gender labels: Revealing gender bias in LLMs through gender-neutral name predictions

    Zhiwen You, HaeJin Lee, Shubhanshu Mishra, Sullam Jeoung, Apratim Mishra, Jinseok Kim, and Jana Diesner. Beyond binary gender labels: Revealing gender bias in LLMs through gender-neutral name predictions. In Agnieszka Fale´ nska, Christine Basta, Marta Costa-juss` a, Seraphina...

    2024

  95. [103]

    Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons

    Lin Zhang, Yuanyuan Shang, Ying Huang, and Gunnar Sivertsen. Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons. Scientometrics, 127(1):145–179, 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    gen- der bias,

    Xinyi Zhao, Aliakbar Akbaritabar, Ridhi Kashyap, and Emilio Zagheni. A gender perspective on the global migration of scholars. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 120 (10):e2214664120, March 2023. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2214664120. URL https...

    2023 doi

  97. [107]

    Similarly, Caplar et al

    found that articles written by women as first authors had fewer median citations than those written by men as first authors. Similarly, Caplar et al. [8] found that papers authored by women receive 10.4 ± 0.9% fewer citations than would be expected if men wrote the papers with...

  98. [2013]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a

    ISSN 1476-4687. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a. URL https://www.nature. com/articles/504211a. Number: 7479 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    doi

  99. [2021]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180

    ISSN 2380-8985. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180. Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.