Sign in
Preprint

Differential correction of gender imbalance for top-cited scientists across scientific subfields over time

J. Ioannidis, K. Boyack, T. A. Collins, J. Baas

Abstract

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992-2001, 2002-2011, post-2011). Using NamSor we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men, and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had >=50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had >=30% women, and 3 subfields had =<10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the USA) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISRiemann '22Hefter '25Boccia '26Broderick '17Dam '20Dworkin '20
72% semantic matchScientific Communication & Education
S. Riemann, M. Roheger, J. Kohlschmidt+4 more·bioRxiv·Jul 28, 2022