By Emily Hokett

It is not a good feeling to go unrecognized for your work. Unfortunately, many women do not get the scientific recognition they deserve. In 1953, that was exactly the case with Rosalind Franklin, a woman scientist who discovered the structure of DNA. She was not included as an author on the original paper and was only granted authorship to help explain the details of her discovery.

Revealing gender bias in scientific recognition: Administrative data exposes gender gaps in various aspects of scientific work

The first data source that the researchers presented was administrative. For this method, they matched research teams to publications to assess which people in the research teams were included on research articles and patents. They had access to administrative data from 36 universities.

Scientific recognition was measured with three different methods:

-1. Ever-author: This designation was given to people on research teams who had been included as an author on any research article or patent. The ever-author status meant that they could have published with other members of their research team or somewhere else entirely.

-2. Team-author: People in this category had published an article or patent with their research team.

-3. High-impact author: This group was defined as those who had been authors on an article or patent with high impact (i.e., received many citations).

For each measurement method, there was a substantial gender gap. Women were less likely to receive authorship on research articles and patents.

-1. Only 12.15% of women met the ever-author criterion, while 21.17% of the med did.

-2. The team-author rate for women was 2.12%, but 4.23% for men. Men were twice as likely to be included as authors.

-3. The high-impact author rate shows the same trend in the gender gap. For articles that were highly cited (e.g., 25 citations), women were 19.97% less likely to be included as an author than men were.

One aspect that could be driving the gender gaps in authorship is seniority. While 60.81% of women were research staff, only 34.82% were faculty members, the people who are more likely to lead the research studies. Low representation of women at the faculty level could discourage young women from pursuing careers in science, as they do not often see themselves in science.

Uncovering gender bias in scientific recognition: Survey data reveals that women may contribute more, but face discrimination

The survey data sheds light on women’s missed scientific recognition. The researchers sent email invitations to researchers who had published after 2014 with a listed email account. They received 2,660 responses from research scientists and inventors.

The results were strikingly similar to those from the administrative data analysis. Of all the women who responded to the survey, nearly half of them reported being excluded as an author or inventor (42.95%), but only 37.81% of the men reported being unrecognized.

Interestingly, compared to men, women were higher contributors to the research in most categories. For example, women helped with conceptualization, data analysis, writing, and revising more so than men did. The only category in which men contributed more than women was software. Thus, it seems that women have to do much more work to be granted authorship.

Although women may contribute more to science than men do, they report being underestimated and discriminated against. Of all the women, 48.97% of them reported that their scientific contributions are unrecognized compared to 39.13% of men citing this cause. Additionally, women reported discrimination as a reason for not being credited for their work, which was twice as likely as the men reporting discrimination (15.46% vs 7.67%).

Taken together, women are contributing more and receiving lower scientific recognition for their work. Discrimination and underestimation of women’s role in scientific discovery are often mentioned as reasons that they are not given due credit.

Revealing the consequences of gender bias in scientific recognition: qualitative interviews expose the challenges faced by women scientists

Women expressed that not receiving authorship negatively impacted their careers and well-being. One woman mentioned that she is in a teaching role, not a research one, which is less dependent on authorship. Women also noted feeling angry, disgusted, and backstabbed in scientific fields.

How will the researchers continue this research? 

The researchers are planning to extend their findings with longitudinal data and collect data from more sites. Longitudinal data collection may help inform policy changes. For example, researchers can evaluate if programs to increase women in science also affect women’s career trajectories

Take-home messages

– Women make up nearly half of the scientific workforce, but they are consistently under-credited for their contributions.

– The gender gap in scientific contribution is not about differences in productivity. Women contribute more than men, but they receive less scientific recognition for their work. This discrepancy is found in both research articles and patents.

– Women are less likely to be in highly ranked roles, which could discourage younger women to pursue a career in science.

To close the gender gap in science, universities and scientific journals should look at their policies and practices. They need to ensure that women receive credit for their contributions. It is also important to increase the representation of women in leadership roles in scientific research so that they have a say in who is included as an author on research papers and patents. Lastly, the scientific community as a whole needs to keep working for gender equality and building a culture that values the work of all scientists, no matter what gender they are.