Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

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 2206.05330 v4 pith:SHXKDPFB submitted 2022-06-10 cs.DL cs.SI

classification cs.DLcs.SI
keywords self-promotiongenderwomenresearchbiasdifferentialevenexplain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but may not be exercised equally by men and women. Research on self-promotion in other domains suggests that, due to bias in self-assessment and adverse reactions to non-gender-conforming behaviors (``pushback''), women tend to self-promote less often than men. We test whether this pattern extends to scholars by examining self-promotion over six years using 23M Tweets about 2.8M research papers by 3.5M authors. Overall, women are about 28% less likely than men to self-promote their papers even after accounting for important confounds, and this gap has grown over time. Moreover, differential adoption of Twitter does not explain the gender gap, which is large even in relatively gender-balanced broad research areas, where bias in self-assessment and pushback are expected to be smaller. Further, the gap increases with higher performance and status, being most pronounced for productive women from top-ranked institutions who publish in high-impact journals. Critically, we find differential returns with respect to gender: while self-promotion is associated with increased tweets of papers, the increase is smaller for women than for men. Our findings suggest that self-promotion varies meaningfully by gender and help explain gender differences in the visibility of scientific ideas.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Citation Sentiment Reflects Multiscale Sociocultural Norms

    cs.SI 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Citation sentiment in neuroscience tracks collaboration, h-index differences, wet/dry-lab culture, and country-level individualism and power distance.

  2. Social Media and Academia: How Gender Influences Online Scholarly Discourse

    cs.SI 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Female computer science academics receive a higher share of threatening and severely toxic replies on Twitter, and they express stronger emotions in their posts than male academics.

Pith tools