RESEARCH ARTICLE - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

ARTÍCULO DE INVESTIGACIÓN

Gender gap among highly cited researchers,
2014–2021

Lokman I. Meho1,2

1Georgetown University in Qatar, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar
2American University of Beirut, Beirut, Líbano

un acceso abierto

diario

Palabras clave: bibliometría, gender disparities, gender gap, highly cited researchers

Citación: Meho, l. I. (2022). Gender gap
among highly cited researchers,
2014–2021. Quantitative Science
Estudios, 3(4), 1003–1023. https://doi.org
/10.1162/qss_a_00218

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00218

Revisión por pares:
https://publons.com/publon/10.1162
/qss_a_00218

Recibió: 26 Abril 2022
Aceptado: 22 Septiembre 2022

Autor correspondiente:
Lokman I. Meho
LM1470@georgetown.edu

Editor de manejo:
Juego Waltman

ABSTRACTO
This study examines the extent to which women are represented among the world’s highly cited
investigadores (HCRs) and explores their representation over time and across fields, regiones, y
countries. The study identifies 11,842 HCRs in all fields and uses Gender-API, Genderize.Io,
Namsor, and the web to identify their gender. Women’s share of HCRs grew from 13.1% en
2014 a 14.0% en 2021; sin embargo, the increase is slower than that of women’s representation
among the general population of authors. The data show that women’s share of HCRs would
need to increase by 100% in health and social sciences, 200% in agriculture, biology, earth,
and environmental sciences, 300% in mathematics and physics, y 500% in chemistry,
computer science, and engineering to close the gap with men. Women’s representation among
all HCRs in North America, Europa, and Oceania ranges from 15% a 18%, compared to a
world average of 13.7%. Among countries with the highest number of HCRs, the gender gap is
least evident in Switzerland, Brasil, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States and
most noticeable in Asian countries. The study reviews factors that can be seen to influence the
gender gap among HCRs and makes recommendations for improvement.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

INTRODUCCIÓN

Research on the gender gap in science continues to receive substantial attention as barriers to
the progress of women in science, tecnología, engineering, y matemáticas (STEM) campos
remain widespread (Bendels, Müller et al., 2018; Ceci, Ginther et al., 2014; Charlesworth &
Banaji, 2019; Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018; Huang, Gates et al., 2020; Larivière, En
et al., 2013; Leslie, Cimpian et al., 2015; Maliniak, Powers, & walter, 2013; Sheltzer & Herrero,
2014; Oeste, Jacquet et al., 2013). According to Aguinis, Ji, and Joo (2018), many factors have
been shown to contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM and other fields, pero
nothing plays a stronger role than gender discrimination, which creates imbalances in the
opportunities presented to and barriers encountered by women compared with men. Estos
include bias in peer review (Helmer, Schottdorf et al., 2017; Murray, Siler et al., 2018), dis-
proportionate resource allocation for men (Duch, Zeng et al., 2012), reviewers and colleagues’
undervaluing the quality of women’s research (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, & Huge, 2013;
Merton, 1968; Rossiter, 1993), stereotypes (Wang & Degol, 2017), favoritism (Abramo,
D’Angelo, & Soldatenkova, 2017), sexual harassment (National Academies of Sciences,
Ingeniería, and Medicine, 2018), poor mentorship (Aguinis et al., 2018), and lack of role
modelos (Campana, Chetty et al., 2019; Botella, Rueda et al., 2019; Lockwood, 2006), among others.

Derechos de autor: © 2022 Lokman I. Meho.
Publicado bajo Creative Commons
Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC POR 4.0)
licencia.

La prensa del MIT

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Gender discrimination and other concepts and phenomena, such as leaky pipelines
(Blickenstaff, 2005; Carr, Gunn et al., 2015; Griffith, 2010; Shaw & Stanton, 2012), demo-
graphic inertia (Hargens & Largo, 2002; Marschke, Laursen et al., 2007; Meho, 2021; Shaw
& Stanton, 2012; tomás, piscina, & Herbers, 2015), the Matthew Effect (Bol, de Vaan, &
van de Rijt, 2018; Botella et al., 2019; Dion, Sumner, & mitchell, 2018; Merton, 1968; Rossiter,
1993), and the Matilda Effect (Dion, Sumner, & mitchell, 2018; Knobloch-Westerwick, et al.,
2013; Lincoln, Pincus et al., 2012; Rossiter, 1993), are often correlated and mutually reinforc-
En g, contributing to women publishing less (Bendels et al., 2018; Larivière et al., 2013), ser
undercited (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013), underfunded (Bol et al., 2018; Ceci et al.,
2014; Witteman, Hendricks et al., 2019), underpaid (Freund, Raj et al., 2016),
underpromoted (Weisshaar, 2017), underrecognized (Lincoln et al., 2012; Mamá, Oliveira
et al., 2019; Meho, 2021), having shorter research careers (Elsevier, 2017, 2020; Huang
et al., 2020), and having few progressing to senior and leadership positions compared to
hombres (Ceci et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2020).

A main indicator of the gender gap in science is women’s representation among elite
scientists—researchers who made their mark in science largely through their publications
and citation performance (chan & Torgler, 2020; Kwiek, 2016; Sá, Cowley et al., 2020). Pub-
lications represent the primary means of disseminating knowledge and the principal measure
of research productivity, which influences career prospects and visibility (Holman et al., 2018;
Ioannidis, 2014). Citations also play a central role in assessing researchers’ influence and
attaining recognition from the scientific community (Carpintero, Cone, & Sarli, 2014; Sá
et al., 2020). Elite scientists are generally highly cited researchers (HCRs), and being relatively
highly cited, especially in fields where citations serve as symbolic capital, is a compelling sign
of research impact. It can put scientists on the radar of their peers, funding agencies, y
research award committees, help them advance further in their careers, and encourage them
to produce more pioneering work (chan & Torgler, 2020; Chatterjee & Werner, 2021; Ha,
Lehrer et al., 2021; Kwiek, 2016; Sá et al., 2020). Institutions benefit, también, as having HCRs
bestows prestige and impact in national and international rankings and helps attract more
funding and high-quality students and faculty (Hazelkorn, 2015; Rauhvargers, 2013). En esto
estudiar, we examine the extent to which women are represented among the world’s HCRs and
explore their representation over time and across fields, regiones, and countries.

It is important to examine the gender gap among HCRs because productivity, investigación
impacto, and reputation in science are highly skewed (chan & Torgler, 2020). Por lo tanto, doc-
umenting women’s representation among HCRs can be informative for addressing the gender
gap in science (Aguinis et al., 2018). A key advantage of studying HCRs is that they are a
relatively homogeneous group of scholars in terms of capacity to produce successful and inno-
vative ideas (chan & Torgler, 2020). Examining the gender gap among HCRs is also important
because these researchers greatly influence individuals around them and often serve as role
models and mentors who enrich their colleagues’ and students’ social and intellectual capital
(Malhotra & singh, 2016). De este modo, understanding the gender gap among HCRs and the factors
that influence this can be useful in planning interventions to help close the gap.

2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE GENDER GAP AMONG HCRS

We did not collect data to identify the root causes of the gender gap among HCRs; sin embargo,
we briefly review here eight relevant factors or phenomena: research productivity and impact,
publication venues, research collaboration, coaffiliation, leaky pipelines, demographic iner-
tia, the Matthew Effect, and the Matilda Effect. These and other factors (p.ej., career length,

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1004

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

author affiliation, author location, national and international mobility, article language,
research quality, and research funding) have been comprehensively reviewed by Tahamtan,
Afshar, and Ahamdzadeh (2016). These factors can considerably affect researchers’ propen-
sity to receive more citations (Beaudry & Larivière, 2016) and achieve stardom, incluido
HCR status.

2.1. Research Productivity and Impact

Research productivity and impact measured by publications and citations are key factors for
attaining HCR status. Female researchers, sin embargo, for various reasons, generally publish and
get cited less than men in most fields (chan & Torgler, 2020; Holman et al., 2018; Larivière
et al., 2013; Nygaard, Aksnes, & Piro, 2022). In a study of 59,278 researchers in science,
tecnología, engineering, matemáticas, and other scientific fields, Aguinis et al. (2018) found
a considerable gender productivity gap among star performers in favor of men across fields.
They also found that the underrepresentation of women is more extreme as we consider more
elite ranges of performance (es decir., arriba 10%, 5%, y 1% of performers), suggesting that women
may have to accumulate more scientific knowledge, resources, and social capital to achieve the
same level of increase in total outputs as their male counterparts. In another study of 943 elite
researchers and their peers in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, Sá and colleagues
(2020) found that among the elites, men published 30% more articles and were cited 64%
more than women. Sin embargo, the difference in publication activity between men and women
in the peer group was insignificant. Sá and colleagues also found that elite male scientists are
significantly more frequently cited than their female peers. Madison and Fahlman (2021)
examined the publication metrics of 1,345 full professors at the six largest universities in
Sweden between 2009 y 2014. They found that men had significantly more publications
and citations in medicine and the social sciences. They concluded that women have to reach
higher levels of scholarly achievement than men to achieve similar career success.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

2.2. Publication Venues

Another factor that can influence the gender gap among HCRs is that women publish fewer
articles in top journals than men. In a study examining 293,557 research articles published in
54 Nature journals covering the categories of life sciences, multidisciplinary, earth and
environmental sciences, and chemistry, Bendels and colleagues (2018) found that 39% de
women contributed 30% of all authorships. In another study of the top 10 political science
journals, Teele and Thelen (2017) found that female authors are well below the proportion
of women in the field (p.ej., 11% authors vs. 23% full professors). According to the Scopus
database, articles published in top quartile journals attract, on average, more than twice, four
veces, y 15 times as many citations as articles published in second, tercero, and fourth quartile
journals, respectively1. Given that top journals are much more frequently cited than others
(Holman et al., 2018), the gender gap in HCRs may shrink if women’s publishing in these
journals is facilitated through such initiatives as having journals and publishers switch from
single to double-blind review and increasing women’s representation among journal editors
and reviewers (Dar, Johnson et al., 2014; Gottlieb, Krzyzaniak et al., 2021; Lerback &
Hanson, 2017; Lincoln et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2018).

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

1 https://www.scopus.com/ (accessed July 4, 2022).

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1005

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

2.3. Collaboration with Large and International Teams

A third factor that can contribute to the gender gap among HCRs can be linked to women’s
lower participation rates in large and international collaborative teams and projects. Larivière,
Gingras et al. (2015) provide a historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration
and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of
direcciones, and number of countries) derived from 32,500,000 articles published between
1900 y 2011. They found that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase
in research impact and that the increase was not due to self-citations. A similar trend was also
observed for the number of addresses and countries represented in an article’s byline. Ellos
concluded that larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliations) equipos
are necessary to realize a higher research impact. Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa (2019)
studied differences in collaboration behavior between 11,145 male and female top scientists
covering the period 2006–2010. The main significant difference between the two groups was
international collaboration, where the propensity for collaboration is greater among male pro-
fessors. Similar results were found among Norwegian researchers (Aksnes, Piro, & Rørstad,
2019). Kwiek and Roszka (2021) examined the gender collaboration practices of all interna-
tionally visible Polish university professors (norte = 25,463) based on their 158,743 journal article
publications between 2009 y 2018. They found that most male scientists collaborate solely
with men; most female scientists, in contrast, do not collaborate with women at all. Across
all age groups studied, all-women collaboration is marginal, while all-men collaboration
is pervasive.

At the discipline level, Jadidi, Karimi et al. (2018) investigated gender-specific differences in
collaboration patterns of more than one million computer scientists worldwide from 1970 a
2017. Their results highlight that successful male and female scientists reveal the same collab-
oration patterns: They tend to collaborate with more colleagues than other scientists, buscar
innovations as brokers, and establish longer-lasting and more repetitive collaborations. Cómo-
alguna vez, on average, women are less likely to adopt the collaboration patterns related to success
and more likely to embed into ego networks devoid of structural holes. zhang, Zhang et al.
(2020) investigated the effect of the international collaboration of 3,118 chemists from 38 uni-
versities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences on male and female scientists’ academic
actuación. The results indicated that, compared to male scientists, female scientists per-
formed better and significantly improved their academic performance through international
colaboración, mainly because it permits them to overcome the lack of social capital and better
integrate into the academic environment (Abramo, D’Angelo, & Murgia, 2013). Similar results
were found among chemistry professors in Pakistan (Badar, Hite, & Badir, 2013).

2.4. Dual Affiliations

A fourth factor that can affect the gender gap among HCRs is multiple affiliations. Women hold
fewer dual affiliations than men, denying them resources for participation in high-impact
investigación (Safaei, Goodarzi et al., 2016). In a study of authors in biology, chemistry, and engi-
neering, Hottenrott and Lawson (2017) found that authors with multiple affiliations have
higher citation numbers and are more often found in high-impact publications or publish more
articles in the top 10% journals than other authors. Hottenrott and Lawson also found that
multiple affiliations are widespread and increasing in all fields and countries. en este estudio,
Encontramos eso 24% del 1,855 female HCRs have affiliations with two or more institutions
y 6% have institutional affiliations in more than one country compared to 30% y 10%,
respectivamente, among male HCRs. These differences would probably have been much greater if

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1006

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

we were examining and comparing all female and male researchers and not only HCRs, como
star performers tend to have more access to such resources (Aguinis et al., 2018; Hottenrott &
Lawson, 2017).

2.5. Leaky Pipelines, Demographic Inertia, the Matthew Effect, and the Matilda Effect

These concepts or phenomena have been widely used to explain or identify causes of gender-
based differences in science. The leaky pipeline analogy is used to show the extent and impact
of women’s dropping out of STEM fields at various stages of their careers on the gender gap in
ciencia (Blickenstaff, 2005; Carr et al., 2015; Griffith, 2010; Shaw & Stanton, 2012). Para
ejemplo, in the United States, women make up nearly 45% of all assistant professors, yet their
proportion drops significantly to 28% among full professors (Fundación Nacional de Ciencia,
2022). As described below, this can influence the number and proportion of female HCRs.
Demographic inertia is primarily used to explain the role of low numbers and proportions
of female authors in the past on their future competition for positions, estado, and recognition
(Hargens & Largo, 2002; Marschke et al., 2007; Meho, 2021; Shaw & Stanton, 2012). It essen-
tially assumes that, given enough time, the gender gap in science (including HCR representa-
ción) will be minimized (Thomas et al., 2015). Relevant examples of the Matthew Effect are
where men as the predominant authors in a field receive more citations, stature, influencia, y
resources (Bol et al., 2018; Botella et al., 2019; Dion et al., 2018) and where women’s
publishing and citation networks are more isolated and have fewer ties than men’s networks
(Yu, Krehbiel et al., 2020)—these and other factors affect the propensity of women to accumu-
late scientific capital to achieve HCR status. As for the Matilda Effect, it is when women’s
research is viewed as less important than men’s research or when women’s ideas are attributed
to male scholars, even as a field becomes more diverse, resulting in the loss of science capital
by women (Dion et al., 2018; Lincoln et al., 2012).

3. MÉTODOS

Similar to Shamsi, Lund, and Mansourzadeh (2022), we use the lists of HCRs generated annu-
ally since 2014 by Clarivate to identify highly cited researchers in all 21 Essential Science
Indicators (ESI) subject categories (see below)2. We also identify HCRs classified by ESI under
a category named cross-field—researchers who did not make it as HCRs in a specific subject
category but have multiple highly cited papers in several fields that together qualify them as
HCRs. The lists of HCRs include the names of the researchers and their subject category(es),
primary affiliation, and secondary affiliation, if any. According to Clarivate, HCRs are
researchers who have demonstrated significant and broad influence through the publication
of multiple highly cited papers during the last 11 full calendar years (p.ej., el 2021 HCR
edition is based on papers published and cited between 2010 y 2020). The source of the
papers is the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index. Highly
cited papers are those that rank in the top 1% of citations in their respective subject categories
and year of publication. The 2014–2020 editions of HCRs exclude papers with more than 30
institutional addresses, y el 2021 edition excludes papers with more than 30 autores.
Authors qualify as HCRs based on the number of highly cited papers they published in one
or more subject categories. The number of HCRs selected in each category is based on the
population of authors in each subject category. For more details on the HCRs methodology,
see Clarivate (2022).

2 https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/essential-science-indicators/.

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1007

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Mesa 1.

Subject categories used in classifying HCRs

Science-Metrix classification
Agriculture and Biology

Chemistry

Computer Science

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Económico & Social Sciences

Ingeniería

Health Sciences

Matemáticas & Estadísticas

Physics & Astronomy

Total

ESI subject categories included

Agricultural Sciences; Plant & Animal Science

Chemistry

Computer Science

Environment & Ecology; Geosciences

Ciencias económicas & Negocio; Social Sciences

Ingeniería; Materials Science

Biología & Biochemistry; Clinical Medicine; Immunology;

Microbiology; Molecular Biology & Genetics;
Neurociencia & Comportamiento; Pharmacology & Toxicology;
Psiquiatría & Psicología

Matemáticas

Physics; Space Science

All above + Cross-Field

Nota: Agriculture and Biology is a merger of the two Science-Metrix categories “Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry” and “Biology.” Engineering is a merger of the
two Science-Metrix categories “Engineering” and “Enabling & Strategic Technologies” (which includes the following subfields: Bioinformatics, Biotecnología,
Energía, Materials, Nanoscience & Nanotechnology, Optoelectronics & Photonics, and Strategic, Defence & Security Studies). We use Computer Science for
Science-Metrix’s “Information & Communication Technologies,” which includes the following subfields: artificial intelligence & image processing, computation
theory & matemáticas, hardware de la computadora & architecture, distributed computing, information systems, medical informatics, networking & telecommunications,
and software engineering.

De 2014 a 2021, the database includes 38,352 HCRs from 76 countries, o 1,855 femenino
y 9,987 male unique HCRs after manually correcting errors in author names (p.ej., lo mismo
author listed with and without middle initials) and accounting for researchers listed in more
than 1 year and subject category. Because of the relatively small number of female HCRs per
year per subject category, we collapsed ESI’s 21 subjects into nine broad fields using the
Science-Metrix (2018) classification as shown in Table 1: Agriculture and Biology, Chemistry,
Computer Science, Earth & Environmental Sciences, Económico & Social Sciences, Ingeniería,
Health Sciences, Matemáticas & Estadísticas, and Physics & Astronomy.

To identify the gender of HCRs, we first used the Gender-API, Genderize.Io, and Namsor
online gender detection tools. These tools rely on extensive, often openly available, name
repositorios (p.ej., those of the US Census and US Social Security) and refine the results by
using additional information (p.ej., names and country of origin) obtained from the web and
social media profiles. Santamaría and Mihaljević (2018) and Sebo (2021a) extensively review
these and other gender detection tools. In Genderize.Io, we used the technique recommended
by Sebo (2021b) to improve accuracy. Generally, these tools report the proportion and number
of times a name is associated with men or women, alongside the number of examples
checked. As in Thelwall (2020), we used evidence of gender if a name was 100% one gender
with at least 10 examples, increasing the evidence requirements as the percentage decreased,
eventually falling to 90% one gender needing 500 examples. Using this method, we identified
the gender of 9,577 (81%) HCRs. We searched the web to identify the gender of all remaining
2,263 HCRs, consulting Wikipedia pages and other sources (p.ej., personal and institutional
web pages and CVs) that provide gender information (based on pronouns used in the text).

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1008

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

When necessary, we relied on images. A limitation of this method and the study is that we
used only a binary gender classification (men-women) and did not consider other genders
or groups (Kozlowski, Murray et al., 2022).

We use primary affiliations of the HCRs when analyzing data by geographical region and
country. Approximately 10% of all HCRs have a secondary affiliation in another country. A
estimate the extent of the gender gap among HCRs, we follow a logical conclusion that the
proportion of female HCRs should be close to the proportion of female authors (Lincoln et al.,
2012). Por esta razón, we identify the pool of eligible candidates for HCR recognition by using
the gender distribution of authors by field and country according to the comprehensive report
published by Science-Metrix (2018), which is based on data from the Scopus database.
Because HCR is annually based on papers published during the previous 11 años, we used
the midpoint for every 11 years as the base for the proportion of female authors. Por ejemplo,
para el 2014 edition of HCR, which is based on papers published between 2003 y 2013, nosotros
used the proportion of female authors in 2008 as reported by Science-Metrix; para el 2015
HCR edition, which is based on papers published between 2004 y 2014, we used the pro-
portion of female authors in 2009; etcétera. Note that authors qualify for HCR recognition
regardless of their position in the byline.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

4. RESULTADOS

4.1. Extent of Improvement

De 2014 a 2021, women accounted for 1,855 o 15.7% de todo 11,842 HCRs. This is similar
to the study by Chan and Torgler (2020), in which they examined the gender of more than
94,000 of the world’s top-cited scientists in 21 fields across 43 countries and found that
15% of these scientists are women. Annually, women’s share of HCRs improved from
13.1% en 2014 a 14.0% en 2021 (Cifra 1). These annual figures are lower than the 15.7%
in total representation because there is a higher HCR turnover among women than men (ver
Sección 4.3). These findings on HCRs reveal a more pervasive indicator of the gender gap in
science compared with the gap in the proportion of female authors in general, where women
account for 33.9% of all authors globally (Science-Metrix, 2018). En breve, considering their
proportion among authors, women’s share of HCRs would need to increase by over 142% (o
de 14.0% a 33.9%) to close the gap with men. The data also show that between 2014 y
2021, the gender gap among HCRs has improved at a slower rate than women’s representation
among authors in general—7% (or from 13.1% a 14.0%) compared to 12% (o 29.5% a
33.9%), respectivamente (Cifra 1).

4.2. Gender Gap by Field

Similar to previous studies on elite researchers (p.ej., Bendels et al., 2018; chan & Torgler,
2020; Holman et al., 2018; Larivière et al., 2013), our data show that the gender gap among
HCRs is greatest in chemistry, computer science, engineering, matemáticas, and physics and
astronomy where women account for 4–7% of all HCRs although they make up 25–35% of
the fields’ authors (Science-Metrix, 2018). This is followed by agriculture and biology as well
as earth and environmental sciences, where women account for 11–14% of all HCRs,
although they make up 31–36% of the fields’ authors. Women’s greatest representation is
in the economic, social, and health sciences, where they constitute 17–21% of all HCRs
(Cifra 1). Considering their numbers among authors worldwide, women’s share of HCRs
would need to double in economic, salud, and social sciences; triple in agriculture, biology,

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1009

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 1. Proportion of female HCRs vs. proportion of female authors, by field. We use the gender distribution of authors as reported by
Science-Metrix (2018). Because HCR is annually based on papers published during the previous 11 años, we used the midpoint for each
11-year period as the base for the proportion of female authors. Por ejemplo, para el 2014 edition of HCR which is based on papers published
entre 2003 y 2013, we use the proportion of female authors in 2008; para el 2015 HCR edition, which is based on papers published
entre 2004 y 2014, we use the proportion of female authors in 2009; etcétera. The figures in parentheses refer to the average number of
HCRs per year from 2014 a 2021 (women/total). In the Total chart, we report the average number of HCRs per year from 2018 a 2021 (y
not from 2014 a 2021) because in 2018 Clarivate Analytics added a new subject classification named Cross-Field—which includes
researchers who did not make it as HCRs in a specific subject category but have multiple highly cited papers in several fields that together
qualify them to be classified as HCRs. Without Cross-Field, the average number of HCRs per year during 2014–2021 would have been
447/3,435 en total. The sum of HCRs by field (455/3,502) is greater than the total (es decir., 447/3,435) because of overlap.

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1010

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Cifra 2. Proportion of researchers maintaining their HCR status by the number of years between
2014 y 2021. An example of how to read this figure: 36% of the male HCRs maintained their
HCR status for 4 years compared to 28% among female HCRs.

and earth and environmental sciences; quadruple in mathematics, física, y astronomía;
and increase more than fivefold in chemistry, computer science, and engineering to close
the gap with men.

4.3. Gender Gap in HCR Status Retention

Abramo et al. (2017) examined all professors in Italy, identified the top ones based on research
productivity, tracked their performance, and concluded that women were less successful than
men in maintaining their stardom over time. en este estudio, we similarly found that 62% de
women maintained their HCR status for more than 1 year compared to 69% of men. Nosotros
also found that the difference in success rate in maintaining HCR status over time increases
in favor of men as more elite ranges of performance are considered (p.ej., scientists with 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, y 8 years of HCR status). Por ejemplo, 4% of women maintained their HCR status in
todo 8 years between 2014 y 2021, compared to 8% among the 9,987 male HCRs (ver
Cifra 2 for more examples). One could attribute these differences to women’s shorter career
and publication history or because women leak out of STEM fields before progressing further
in their careers more than men (Carr et al., 2015; Ceci et al., 2014; Diamante, Thomas et al.,
2016; Elsevier, 2017, 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Sheltzer & Herrero, 2014). Nosotros, sin embargo, attri-
bute these differences to three other or additional considerations: The study covers a short
período, 2014–2021; the number of female HCRs is far smaller than men to allow accurate
gender comparisons here; and a higher proportion of woman than men were more recently
classified as HCRs—for example, of all female HCRs, 13% were first classified as HCRs in
2021 compared to 10% among men (Cifra 3). These results suggest that it will become more
pertinent to accurately assess gender differences in HCR status retention as time passes.

4.4. Gender Gap by Region

North America, Oceania, and Northern, Southern, and Western Europe are home to 1,656 (o
89%) of the world’s 1,855 female HCRs. Women’s representation among all HCRs in these
five regions ranges from 15% a 18%, compared to the world average of 13.7%. A pesar de
in Latin America and the Caribbean (dónde 8% of the world’s population resides) women rep-
resent over 26% of all HCRs in the region, they account for only 1% o 19 of the world’s 1,855
female HCRs. Similarmente, in Sub-Saharan Africa (dónde 15% of the world’s population resides),
women represent over 19% of all HCRs in the region, but they account for only 0.3% or six of
the world’s 1,855 female HCRs. Women’s gender gap among HCRs is most pronounced in

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1011

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Cifra 3. Proportion of HCRs entering the list for the first time by year. The year 2014 is excluded
because it marks the beginning of the period covered in the study.

South Asia, Asia Oriental, the Middle East and North Africa, and Eastern Europe, where women’s
representation among all HCRs in their respective regions ranges from a high 10% to a low 6%
(Cifra 4). These results corroborate those of Bendels and colleagues (2018), who found that
women’s representation among the authors of articles in 54 of the highly prestigious Nature
journals is highest in Latin America (36%), followed by North America, Oceania, and Europe
(30–33%), and a distant last Asia (20%).

4.5. Gender Gap by Country

At the individual country level, we find a wide-ranging or highly disproportionate distribution
of women’s representation among HCRs, extending from 0% (en 26 countries) a 100%
(Cifra 5). Del 50 countries with at least one female HCR, 33 exceed the world average
de 13.7% in women’s proportion among the total population of HCRs; the number of countries
rating above the world average is high largely due to the relatively small number of male and
female HCRs in most countries. En efecto, del 50 countries with female HCR representation,
solo 16 have more than 1% of the world’s share of all HCRs, y solo 13 countries have more
than 1% of the world’s share of female HCRs. Countries with sizeable numbers of HCRs but

Cifra 4. Proportion of female HCRs by geographical region. Figures in parentheses refer to the number of female HCRs in the region over the
total number of HCRs in the region. The world average proportion of female HCRs during 2014–2021 is 13.7%. The sum of all regions is
higher than the total number of HCRs and higher than 100% due to researchers’ mobility between 2014 y 2021.

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1012

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

highly disproportionate representation of women include Taiwan (4/73), South Korea (5/94),
and Iran (1/40). Our data revealed several important observations among the 16 countries with
encima 1% of the world’s HCRs (Cifra 6):

▪ The great majority are countries with mature and open scientific systems, strong scientific
producción, and high support for science and research and development (Nature Index,
2014; Wagner & Jonkers, 2017).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 5. Proportion of female HCRs by country. Figures in parentheses refer to the number of
female HCRs in the country over the total number of HCRs in the country. Highlighted in red are
countries with more than 1% of the world’s share of HCRs.

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1013

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Cifra 6. Gender gap among HCRs by country. The chart is limited to the 16 countries with over
1% of the world’s share of HCRs. Figures for the proportion of female authors are from Science-
Metrix (2018).

▪ China: Although women make up over 40% of all authors (Science-Metrix, 2018), they lag
far behind in representation among HCRs. The situation is so grim that women’s share of
HCRs needs to increase by 450% to close the gap with men. According to Tang and Horta
(2021a, 2021b), despite the legal assurance of gender parity in China and even though
women make up more than half of all the country’s authors, Chinese female academics
still encounter many obstacles in terms of promotion, participation in institutional and
research leadership positions, and access to resources; are more likely to be part of net-
works or collaborative dynamics that are less visible, less impactful, or farther from the
centers of authority in the field and institutions; and their imbalanced representation in
the higher academic ranks (es decir., full professor), as leaders of departments, faculties, or uni-
versidades, and in the most research-oriented universities creates many challenges for them.
▪ Germany: In the past two decades, Germany has introduced several programs to increase
women’s participation in science, such as the “Women Professorship Programme” and the
“Pact for Research and Innovation.” Despite the positive impact of these programs (Bührer
& Frietsch, 2020), women in Germany still constitute only 21% of the country’s authors,
one of the lowest proportions in Europe. Sin embargo, because of this low representation of
women among authors, Germany ranks the sixth closest to bridging the gender gap among
HCRs compared to the other 15 countries. Women’s share of HCRs in Germany would
need to increase by 65% to close the gap with men (compared to 142% globally).

▪ Japan: Although women in Japan account for only 6.7% of all HCRs in the country, el
gender gap in HCRs is lower than in most other countries, mainly because Japan has one
of the world’s lowest proportions of female authors (13.5%). Women’s share of HCRs in
the country would need to increase by 102% to close the gap with men (compared to
142% globally). Japan’s gender gap in science is essentially a result of its patriarchal soci-
ety (Bendels et al., 2018), stagnation in research productivity, and few opportunities for
permanent jobs for early-career scientists (Fuyuno, 2017). In 2020–2021, women’s share
of HCRs in the country increased by three (o 20%) against a world average of 23%.
▪ Saudi Arabia: It has not only one of the world’s lowest proportions of female authors and
female HCRs but also all of its 12 female HCRs are expatriates, y 11 of them are

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1014

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

affiliated with a single institution—King Abdulaziz University, which is historically known
for hiring international HCRs with minimal duties on campus (Bhattacharjee, 2011; Bia-
gioli, Kenney et al., 2019; Pachter, 2014). The lack of home-grown female HCRs in Saudi
Arabia can largely be attributed to cultural reasons (p.ej., patriarchal society) and the fact
that the country has one of the world’s widest gender gaps in employment (OECD, 2019).
▪ Singapore: Has been investing heavily in research as an engine for growth (Van Noorden,
2018). Nine of the 10 female HCRs in Singapore are located at the country’s second and
third most productive research institutions—Nanyang Technological University (5) y
the Agency for Science, Tecnología & Investigación (4). The gender gap among HCRs in
the country remains very high (encima 300%), but the fact that 70% of Singapore’s HCRs
entered the list in 2020 y 2021 (against a world average of 23%) could be a sign that
the heavy investment in research has just started to pay off among early-career female
researchers in terms of their number and representation among the country’s HCRs.
▪ Switzerland: Is the only country where the proportion of female HCRs is almost the same
as that of female authors.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The proportion of female authors worldwide has improved remarkably, with the great majority
of countries currently exceeding 30% (Elsevier, 2017, 2020; Holman et al., 2018; Larivière
et al., 2013; Science-Metrix, 2018). The number and proportion of women among senior pro-
fessors (associate and full professors) have also increased considerably in the past few years;
Por ejemplo, in the United States, de 44,900 (o 28%) en 2010 a 61,700 (o 33%) en 2019
(Fundación Nacional de Ciencia, 2022), in Canada from 8,049 (30%) en 2010 a 10,458 (36%) en
2020 (Statistics Canada, 2021), among European Union countries (including the United King-
dominación) de 20% en 2010 a 26% en 2018 for full professors and from 36% a 40% for Grade B
academic staff (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
2013, 2021), and in India from 53,591 (28%) en 2010 a 73,016 (34%) en 2019 (AISHE,
2013, 2020). Despite these improvements, this study found a huge gender gap among HCRs.
The proportion of female HCRs (es decir., those who train junior scientists or serve as role models)
is worryingly low, considering women’s numbers and proportions among the general popula-
tion of authors and senior professors.

The time it would take to close the gender gap among HCRs depends greatly on initiatives
taken and reforms made in policies, education, mentoring, fondos, and publishing. Periódico
and frequent assessments and evaluations of these reforms are also necessary to ensure suc-
impuesto. As found in the study by Tang and Horta (2021a) on female academics in China, interés
in the gender gap in science is largely triggered by governmental policy considerations and
cambios. It becomes relatively dormant during periods of lower policy activity.

Another worrying finding is that women have not been able to maintain their HCR status for
as long as men. This could be due largely to women’s shorter career and publication history
and the fact that women leak out of STEM fields before progressing further in their careers
more than men (Elsevier, 2020; Huang et al., 2020). Además, solo 9% of all female HCRs
are classified under chemistry, computer science, engineering, matemáticas, física, y
astronomy compared to 22% in the case of men. Official reports, such as the one based
sobre el 2018 large-scale global survey of mathematical, natural, and computing scientists
(Guillopé & roy, 2020), show evidence that women and men do not have the same experiences
in science, and that women’s experiences are less positive than men’s regarding sexual harass-
mento, fair and respectful treatment, career progression and discrimination, access to resources,

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1015

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Cifra 7. Women’s HCR representation in chemistry, computer science, engineering, matemáticas
& Estadísticas, and physics & astronomía (by geographical region).

and effect of children on the career. Even where women’s HCR representation in these fields is
relatively good (es decir., in North America and Northern, Southern, and Western Europe (Cifra 7))
recent reports published by learned societies in these four regions indicate that the gender gap
in science conditions is still very grim. Por ejemplo, the Royal Society of Chemistry (2018) en
the United Kingdom describes a context of funding uncertainty, an inflexible and unsupportive
academic culture, and gender-stereotyped family and home care expectations as barriers that
limit women’s progress in the field. A report by the National Academies of Sciences, Ingeniería,
and Medicine (2018) in the United States and another in Canada (Holroyd-Leduc & Straus,
2018) describe a pervasive, persistent, and damaging culture of harassment that limits the
participation and advancement of women in STEM. All these reports recommend more effec-
tive policies and initiatives to reduce the gender gap in science.

Coe, wiley, and Bekker (2019) mention that diversity within the scientific workforce brings
unique perspectives, drives creativity and innovation, and provides new contexts for under-
standing and applying research findings. Leaders and practitioners in STEM continue to be
unaware of and poorly educated about the nature, extent, and impact of barriers to the full
participation of women in these fields. This lack of awareness and education results in the
failure to fully mobilize the human capital of half the global population and limits technolog-
ical and medical advances. This study shows that high levels of female author representation
(such as those in China, South Korea, and Taiwan) are insufficient to diminish the gender gap
among HCRs. The chronic lack of recruitment, promoción, and retention of female scientists,
stars and otherwise, is due to systemic, structural, organizational, institutional, cultural, y
societal barriers to equity, diversity, and inclusion. These barriers must be identified and
removed through increased awareness of the challenges combined with evidence-based,
data-driven approaches leading to measurable targets and outcomes (Coe, wiley, & Bekker,
2019; Nielsen, Bloch, & Schiebinger, 2018).

We suggest that efforts to enhance women’s representation among HCRs be wide-ranging,

realistic, and include, among others:

▪ Reforms in academic publishing and peer review, and guarantees that women have equal
access to professional networks, are afforded equal resources at work, are given better
access to parental and personal support, and that the extra demands outside the workplace
that traditionally fall on women are taken into account when assessing achievements

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1016

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

(Bates, Gordon et al., 2016; Ceci et al., 2014; Duch et al., 2012; Lerback & Hanson, 2017;
Lutter & Schröder, 2020; Shaw & Stanton, 2012; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012).

▪ Use of quotas or specific targets for the number and proportion of female STEM faculty or
academic staff and requiring these methods within organizations and departments (Coe
et al., 2019). The impact of such a requirement is best exemplified by the Swiss Institute
of Bioinformatics (SIB), which strictly implements the principles of equality, diversity,
and inclusion, aiming for gender-balanced representation among their academic and
scientific staff. The result of this policy at SIB is a population of staff where nearly half
(49%) are women, including software developers, computational biologists, científicos,
managers, and data analysts. Con 55 HCRs in total, it was not surprising that 24 (o
44%) of SIB’s HCRs were women—ranking second in the world in terms of female
representation among HCRs, behind the U.S. National Institute on Aging’s 46% (o 6 afuera
de 13 HCRs).
▪ Increase in the number of female role models in the scientific workforce of organizations
and academic departments. This is a key factor in reducing the gender gap, as women
receive more inspiration and aspiration from outstanding female role models than men
(Bell et al., 2019; Botella et al., 2019; Lockwood, 2006). Increasing the pool of women
top scholars (as researchers and mentors) within an institution or a country can have a
snowball effect, as boasting more female scholars helps in increasing and producing
top scholars (Aguinis et al., 2018; chan & Torgler, 2020).

▪ Introduction of excellence initiatives to facilitate women’s access to resources, redes,
and research infrastructure (Hottenrott, Rose, & Lawson, 2021). Universities, Por ejemplo,
may wish to focus on identifying stars based on objective measures and then implement
policies that guarantee more significant growth opportunities (p.ej., reduced teaching load
and greater allocation of research funds (Aguinis et al., 2018)).

▪ Development of gender-based national, regional, or international rankings or ratings of
research institutions (universities and others) assessing the number, proportion, and status
of female scientists they have. Such rankings can provide valid and valuable information
for determining excellence in achieving gender-balanced representation among academic
and scientific staff (ver tabla 2 as an example). Administrators could rely on these rank-
ings or ratings as indicators of improvement over time, as methods to determine institu-
tional priorities, and as benchmarking tools against peer institutions. Governments and
funding agencies would use these rankings or ratings for information about the perfor-
mance of their higher education institutions or other organizations in which they have
invested resources.

▪ Have national academies, professional associations, and scientific societies use gender-
based criteria in decision-making. Por ejemplo, membership in the Association of Amer-
ican Universities (AAU) is considered one of the most prestigious honors in higher
education in the United States. Among the criteria influencing the Association’s decision
to forward an invitation for membership are the number of HCRs and the number of
national academy members an institution has. One could only imagine what aspiring
institutions would do if AAU required, as a condition of membership, that institutions
must meet certain gender-based thresholds, such as a minimum number and proportion
of female scientists, HCRs, and national academy members (with a minimum number of
service years at the institution with full-time status).

Efforts to enhance women’s representation among HCRs must consider the social, cultural,
económico, historical, and political contexts in which researchers conduct scientific research.
Each country and institution should carefully study its contexts to facilitate women’s success.

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1017

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Mesa 2. Gender disparity among HCRs, by institution (arriba 50 institutions by total number of HCRs)

Institution
Wellcome Sanger Institute,

Reino Unido

Mayo Clinic, United States

Universidad Johns Hopkins, United States

Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH),

United States

King’s College London,
Reino Unido

Universidad de Duke, United States

Washington University in Saint Louis,

United States

Universidad de Cornell, United States

University of Michigan, United States

Imperial College London,

Reino Unido

Yale University, United States

University of Texas M.D. anderson
Cancer Center, United States

Brigham & Women’s Hospital,

United States

University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, United States

University of California San Francisco,

United States

University of Queensland, Australia

University College London,

Reino Unido

Broad Institute, United States

Universidad de Utrecht, Países Bajos

Harvard University, United States

University of Cambridge,

Reino Unido

Universidad Stanford, United States

Universidad de Melbourne, Australia

University of Washington Seattle,

United States

Total
HCRs
80

Ranking by
total HCRs
27

Female
HCRs
22

101

173

115

542

214

113

T44

T18

T14

T34

T28

T48

T31

T37

T39

T34

Ranking by
female HCRs

T15

T24

T10

T24

T18

T15

T37

T24

T31

T18

T34

T18

T10

T43

T18

T37

% of female
HCRs
27.5

26.6

25.7

24.9

24.6

23.3

23.2

21.4

20.5

20.3

20.2

20.0

19.7

19.4

18.8

18.4

18.3

17.7

17.5

16.5

16.4

15.9

Ranking by %
of female HCRs

T15

T22

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1018

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Mesa 2.

(continued )

Total
HCRs
96

Ranking by
total HCRs
17

Female
HCRs
15

Ranking by
female HCRs
T24

% of female
HCRs
15.6

Ranking by %
of female HCRs
24

Institution
Columbia University, United States

Universidad de Pennsylvania,

United States

universidad de toronto, Canada

University of California San Diego,

United States

Massachusetts General Hospital,

United States

Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique, Francia

Max Planck Society, Alemania

University of California Berkeley,

United States

164

127

Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts,

158

United States

University of Maryland College Park,

United States

Universidad de Oxford, Reino Unido

Instituto Médico Howard Hughes,

United States

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute,

United States

University of Texas at Austin,

United States

Memorial Sloan Kettering

Cancer Center, United States

University of California Los Angeles,

United States

Universidad de Princeton, United States

California Institute of Technology,

United States

122

Academia China de Ciencias, Porcelana

260

University of Chicago, United States

Northwestern University,

United States

Universidad de Tsinghua, Porcelana

T28

T18

T25

T48

T39

T42

T31

T14

T37

T44

T24

T37

T31

T37

T43

T15

T10

T65

T18

T57

T65

T57

T43

T75

T85

+100

T85

15.2

14.7

14.6

14.1

14.0

13.4

13.3

13.1

13.0

12.3

12.2

11.8

11.2

9.7

9.4

9.2

9.1

8.5

7.0

T26

T33

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1019

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Mesa 2.

(continued )

Institution
King Abdulaziz University,

Saudi Arabia

Nanyang Technological University,

Singapur

National University of Singapore,

Singapur

King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

Total
HCRs
232

Ranking by
total HCRs

T34

T42

T25

Female
HCRs
16

Ranking by
female HCRs
T18

% of female
HCRs
6.9

Ranking by %
of female HCRs
47

+100

+300

6.8

1.5

1.2

EXPRESIONES DE GRATITUD

The author would like to thank the referees and Debora (Ralf ) Shaw for their valuable
comments and suggestions.

CONFLICTO DE INTERESES

The author has no competing interests.

INFORMACIÓN DE FINANCIACIÓN

No funding was received for this study.

DISPONIBILIDAD DE DATOS

The data used in this study is available in a repository (Lokman, 2022).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

REFERENCIAS

Abramo, GRAMO., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2019). A gender anal-
ysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: Evidence from Italy.
cienciometria, 120(2), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-019-03136-6

Abramo, GRAMO., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, GRAMO. (2013). Gender differ-
ences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4),
811–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002

Abramo, GRAMO., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). How long
do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region,
gender and discipline: Evidence from Italy. cienciometria,
110(2), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2193-x
Aguinis, h., Ji, Y. h., & Joo, h. (2018). Gender productivity gap
among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Diario
of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1283–1306. https://doi.org/10
.1037/apl0000331, PubMed: 30024197

AISHE. (2013). All India Survey on Higher Education 2010–11. Gobernar-
ment of India. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Depart-
ment of Higher Education. New Delhi. https://www.education
.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics/AISHE201011_0.pdf
AISHE. (2020). All India Survey on Higher Education 2019–20.
Government of India. Ministry of Education. Department of

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Higher Education. New Delhi. https://www.education.gov.in
/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/aishe_eng.pdf

Aksnes, D. w., Piro, F. NORTE., & Rørstad, k. (2019). Gender gaps in
international research collaboration: A bibliometric approach.
cienciometria, 120(2), 747–774. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-019-03155-3

Badar, K., Hite, j. METRO., & Badir, Y. F. (2013). Examining the relation-
ship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on aca-
demic research performance: The case of chemistry researchers
in Pakistan. cienciometria, 94(2), 755–775. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11192-012-0764-z

Bates, C., gordon, l., Travis, MI., Chatterjee, A., Chaudron, l., … Moses,
A. (2016). Striving for gender equity in academic medicine careers:
A call to action. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1050–1052. https://doi
.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001283, PubMed: 27332868

Beaudry, C., & Larivière, V. (2016). Which gender gap? Factors
affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine.
Política de investigación, 45(9), 1790–1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.respol.2016.05.009

Campana, A., Chetty, r., Jaravel, X., Petkova, NORTE., & Van Reenen, j.
(2019). Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1020

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

of exposure to innovation. Revista trimestral de economía,
134(2), 647–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy028

Bendels, METRO. h. K., Müller, r., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A.
(2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by
nature index journals. MÁS UNO, 13(1), e0189136. https://doi
.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136, PubMed: 29293499

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2011). Saudi universities offer cash in exchange
for academic prestige. Ciencia, 334(6061), 1344–1345. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6061.1344, PubMed: 22158799
Biagioli, METRO., Kenney, METRO., Martín, B. r., & Walsh, j. PAG. (2019). Aca-
demic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassess-
mento. Política de investigación, 48(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.respol.2018.10.025

Blickenstaff, j. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipe-
line or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072

Bol, T., de Vaan, METRO., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew Effect in
science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences of the United States of America, 115(19), 4887–4890.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115, PubMed: 29686094
Botella, C., Rueda, S., López-Iñesta, MI., & Marzal, PAG. (2019). Gender
diversity in STEM disciplines: A multiple factor problem. Entropy,
21(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21010030, PubMed: 33266746
Bührer, S., & Frietsch, R. (2020). How do public investments in gen-
der equality initiatives and publication patterns interrelate? El
case of Germany. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101752.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101752, PubMed:
31756531

Carpintero, C. r., Cone, D. C., & Sarli, C. C. (2014). Using publica-
tion metrics to highlight academic productivity and research
impacto. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21(10), 1160–1172.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12482, PubMed: 25308141

Carr, PAG. l., Gunn, C. METRO., Kaplan, S. A., Raj, A., & Freund, k. METRO.
(2015). Inadequate progress for women in academic medicine:
Findings from the National Faculty Study. Journal of Women’s
Salud, 24(3), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4848,
PubMed: 25658907

Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & williams, W.. METRO. (2014). Women
in academic science: A changing landscape. ciencia psicológica
in the Public Interest, Supplement, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1529100614541236, PubMed: 26172066

chan, h. F., & Torgler, B. (2020). Gender differences in performance
of top cited scientists by field and country. cienciometria,
125(3), 2421–2447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w
Charlesworth, t. mi. S., & Banaji, METRO. R. (2019). Gender in science,
tecnología, engineering, y matemáticas: Asuntos, causes, solu-
ciones. Revista de neurociencia, 39(37), 7228–7243. https://doi
.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0475-18.2019, PubMed: 31371423
Chatterjee, PAG., & Werner, R. METRO. (2021). Gender disparity in citations
in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Network Open, 4(7),
e2114509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021
.14509, PubMed: 34213560

Dar, A. h., Johnson, S. A., Schuman, C. MI., Adler, j. METRO., González,
o., … Bruna, mi. METRO. (2014). Women are underrepresented on the
editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural
resource management. PeerJ, 2, e542. https://doi.org/10.7717
/peerj.542, PubMed: 25177537

Clarivate. (2022). Highly cited researchers. https://recognition

.webofscience.com/awards/highly-cited/2021/

Coe, I. r., wiley, r., & Bekker, l. GRAMO. (2019). Organisational best
practices towards gender equality in science and medicine.
The Lancet, 393(10171), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0140-6736(18)33188-X, PubMed: 30739694

Diamante, S. J., tomás, C. r., Desai, S., Holliday, mi. B., Jagsi, r., …
Enestvedt, B. k. (2016). Gender differences in publication
productivity, academic rank, and career duration among U.S.
academic gastroenterology faculty. Academic Medicine, 91(8),
1158–1163. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219,
PubMed: 27144993

Dion, METRO. l., Sumner, j. l., & mitchell, S. METRO. (2018). Gendered cita-
tion patterns across political science and social science method-
ology fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/10
.1017/pan.2018.12

Duch, J., Zeng, X. h. T., Sales-Pardo, METRO., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., …
Nunes Amaral, l. A. (2012). The possible role of resource require-
ments and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in
publication rate and impact. MÁS UNO, 7(12), e51332. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332, PubMed: 23251502
Elsevier. (2017). Gender in the global research landscape. https://
www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1083945/Elsevier
-gender-report-2017.pdf (accessed April 10, 2022).

Elsevier. (2020). The researcher journey through a gender lens.
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1083971
/Elsevier-gender-report-2020.pdf (accessed April 10, 2022).

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Inno-
vación. (2013). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innova-
ción: Statistics and indicators. Publications Office. https://doi.org
/10.2777/38520

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Inno-
vación. (2021). She figures 2021: Gender in research and innova-
ción: Statistics and indicators. Publications Office. https://doi.org
/10.2777/06090

Freund, k. METRO., Raj, A., Kaplan, S. MI., Terrin, NORTE., Breeze, j. l., … Carr,
PAG. l. (2016). Inequities in academic compensation by gender: A
follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study. Académico
Medicamento, 91(8), 1068–1073. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM
.0000000000001250, PubMed: 27276007

Fuyuno, I. (2017). What price will science pay for austerity? Naturaleza,
543(7646), S10–S15. https://doi.org/10.1038/543S10a, PubMed:
28328909

Gottlieb, METRO., Krzyzaniak, S. METRO., Mannix, A., Parsons, METRO., Mody, S.,
… Chan, t. METRO. (2021). Sex distribution of editorial board mem-
bers among emergency medicine journals. Annals of Emergency
M e d i c i n e , 7 7 ( 1 ) , 11 7 – 1 2 3 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j
.annemergmed.2020.03.027, PubMed: 32376090

Griffith, A. l. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM
field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education
Revisar, 29(6), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev
.2010.06.010

Guillopé, C., & roy, M.-F. (2020). A global approach to the gender
gap in mathematical, computing, and natural sciences how to
measure it, how to reduce it? Gender Gap in Science project.
Berlina: International Mathematical Union.

Ha, GRAMO. l., Lehrer, mi. J., Wang, METRO., Holliday, MI., Jagsi, r., & Zaorsky,
norte. GRAMO. (2021). Sex differences in academic productivity across
academic ranks and specialties in academic medicine: A system-
atic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 4(6),
e2112404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021
.12404, PubMed: 34185071

Hargens, l. l., & Largo, j. S. (2002). Demographic inertia and
women’s representation among faculty in higher education. Jour-
nal of Higher Education, 73(4), 494–517. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00221546.2002.11777161

Hazelkorn, mi. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher educa-
ción: The battle for world-class excellence, 2y ed.. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137446671

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1021

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

Helmer, METRO., Schottdorf, METRO., Neef, A., & battaglia, D. (2017).
Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eVida, 6, e21718. https://
doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718, PubMed: 28322725

Holman, l., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. mi. (2018). The gender gap
in science: How long until women are equally represented?
PLOS Biology, 16(4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pbio.2004956, PubMed: 29672508

Holroyd-Leduc, j. METRO., & Straus, S. mi. (2018). #MeToo and the med-
ical profession. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(33),
E972–E973. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181037, PubMed:
30127036

Hottenrott, h., & Lawson, C. (2017). A first look at multiple institu-
tional affiliations: A study of authors in Germany, Japan and the
Reino Unido. cienciometria, 111(1), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-017-2257-6, PubMed: 28386152

Hottenrott, h., Rose, METRO. MI., & Lawson, C. (2021). The rise of mul-
tiple institutional affiliations in academia. Journal of the Associa-
tion for Information Science and Technology, 72(8), 1039–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24472

Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, r., & Barrabás, A. l. (2020). Histórico
comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across
countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(9), 4609–4616.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117, PubMed: 32071248
Ioannidis, j. PAG. A. (2014). How to make more published research
true. PLOS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747. https://doi.org/10.1371
/journal.pmed.1001747, PubMed: 25334033

Jadidi, METRO., Karimi, F., Lietz, h., & Wagner, C. (2018). Gender dis-
parities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and
success of male and female computer scientists. Avances en
Complex Systems, 21(3–4), 1750011. https://doi.org/10.1142
/S0219525917500114

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, METRO. (2013). El
Matilda Effect in science communication: An experiment on gen-
der bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration
interés. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1075547012472684

Kozlowski, D., Murray, D. S., Campana, A., Hulsey, w., Larivière, v., …
Sugimoto, C. R. (2022). Avoiding bias when inferring race using
name-based approaches. MÁS UNO, 17(3), e0264270. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264270, PubMed: 35231059
Kwiek, METRO. (2016). The European research elite: A cross-national study
of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education,
71(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x

Kwiek, METRO., & Roszka, W.. (2021). Gender-based homophily in
investigación: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration. Jour-
nal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi
.2021.101171

Larivière, v., Gingras, y., Sugimoto, C. r., & Tsou, A. (2015). Equipo
size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technol-
ogia, 66(7), 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266

Larivière, v., En, C., Gingras, y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R.
(2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science.
Naturaleza, 504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a,
PubMed: 24350369

Lerback, J., & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to
referee. Naturaleza, 541(7638), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1038
/541455a, PubMed: 28128272

Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, METRO., & Freeland, mi. (2015). Expec-
tations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across aca-
demic disciplines. Ciencia, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org
/10.1126/science.1261375, PubMed: 25593183

Lincoln, A. MI., Pincus, S., Koster, j. B., & Leboy, PAG. S. (2012).
The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US,
1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830, PubMed:
22849001

Lockwood, PAG. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do
college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471
-6402.2006.00260.X

Lokman, METRO. (2022). Gender gap among highly cited researchers,
2014–2021 [Data set]. https://hdl.handle.net/10938/23709

Lutter, METRO., & Schröder, METRO. (2020). Is there a motherhood penalty in
academia? The gendered effect of children on academic publica-
tions in German sociology. European Sociological Review, 36(3),
442–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz063

Mamá, y., Oliveira, D. F. METRO., Woodruff, t. K., & Uzzi, B. (2019).
Women who win prizes get less money and prestige. Naturaleza,
565(7739), 287–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019
-00091-3, PubMed: 30651627

Madison, GRAMO., & Fahlman, PAG. (2021). Sex differences in the number
of scientific publications and citations when attaining the rank
of professor in Sweden. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12),
2506–2527. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1723533
Malhotra, PAG., & singh, METRO. (2016). Indirect impact of high performers
on the career advancement of their subordinates. Humano
Resource Management Review, 26(3), 209–226. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.01.002

Maliniak, D., Powers, r., & walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation
gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4),
889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209

Marschke, r., Laursen, S., Nielsen, j. METRO., & Rankin, PAG. (2007).
Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve
equitable gender representation among faculty in higher educa-
ción. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00221546.2007.11778961

Meho, l. I. (2021). The gender gap in highly prestigious interna-
tional research awards, 2001–2020. Quantitative Science
Estudios, 2(3), 976–989. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00148
Merton, R. k. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science: La recompensa
and communication systems of science are considered. Ciencia,
159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56,
PubMed: 5634379

Murray, D., Siler, K., Lariviére, v., chan, W.. METRO., Collings, A. METRO., …
Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Gender and international diversity
improves equity in peer review. BioRxiv, 400515 [preprint]. Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10
.1101/400515v2.full

National Academies of Sciences, Ingeniería, and Medicine.
(2018). Sexual harassment of women: Clima, cultura, y estafa-
sequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine.
PAG. A. Johnson, S. mi. Widnall, & F. F. Benya (Editores.). Washington,
corriente continua: The National Academies Press.

Fundación Nacional de Ciencia. (2022). Survey of doctorate recipi-

ents. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctoratework

Nature Index. (2014). North & Western Europe. Naturaleza,
515(7526), S66–S68. https://doi.org/10.1038/515S66a,
PubMed: 25390146

Nielsen, METRO., Bloch, C., & Schiebinger, l. (2018). Making gender
diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Naturaleza
Comportamiento humano, 2(10), 726–724. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41562-018-0433-1, PubMed: 31406295

Nygaard, l. PAG., Aksnes, D. w., & Piro, F. norte. (2022). Identifying
gender disparities in research performance: The importance of

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1022

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021

comparing apples with apples. Higher Education, 84,
1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00820-0

OECD. (2019). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. https://www
.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_SAU
.pdf (accessed June 28, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en
Pachter, l. (2014). To some a citation is worth $3 per year. https://
liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/to-some-a-citation-is
-worth-3-per-year/ (accessed June 28, 2022).

Rauhvargers, A. (2013). Global university rankings and their impact

– Report II. Bruselas: European University Association.

Rossiter, METRO. W.. (1993). The Matthew Matilda Effect in science.
Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10
.1177/030631293023002004

Royal Society of Chemistry. (2018). Breaking the barriers: Women’s
retention and progression in the chemical sciences. https://www
.rsc.org/new-perspectives/talent/breaking-the-barriers/ (accedido
Abril 25, 2021).

Sá, C., Cowley, S., Martinez, METRO., Kachynska, NORTE., & Sabzalieva, mi.
(2020). Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition
among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa.
MÁS UNO, 15(10), e0240903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0240903, PubMed: 33119671

Safaei, METRO. r., Goodarzi, METRO., Mahian, o., Dahari, METRO., & Wongwises,
S. (2016). A survey of using multiple affiliations by scholars in
scientific articles. cienciometria, 107(1), 317–318. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1875-8

Santamaría, l., & Mihaljević, h. (2018). Comparison and benchmark
of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science, 4,
e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156, PubMed: 33816809
Science-Metrix Inc. (2018). Analytical support for bibliometrics
indicators: Development of bibliometric indicators to measure
women’s contribution to scientific publications. Montréal:
Science-Metrix Inc.

Sebo, PAG. (2021a). Performance of gender detection tools: A compar-
ative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the
Medical Library Association, 109(3), 414–421. https://doi.org/10
.5195/jmla.2021.1185, PubMed: 34629970

Sebo, PAG. (2021b). Using genderize.io to infer the gender of first
names: How to improve the accuracy of the inference. Diario
of the Medical Library Association, 109(4), 609–612. https://doi
.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1252, PubMed: 34858090

Shamsi, A., Lund, B., & Mansourzadeh, METRO. j. (2022). Gender disparities
among highly cited researchers in biomedicine, 2014–2020. JAMA
Network Open, 5(1), e2142513. https://doi.org/10.1001
/jamanetworkopen.2021.42513, PubMed: 34994797

Shaw, A. K., & Stanton, D. mi. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: Sepa-
rating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in
academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biológico
Ciencias, 279(1743), 3736–3741. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb
.2012.0822, PubMed: 22719028

Sheltzer, j. METRO., & Herrero, j. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life
sciences employ fewer women. Actas del Nacional
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(28),
10107–10112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403334111,
PubMed: 24982167

Statistics Canada. (2021). Mesa 37-10-0076-01: Número de
full-time teaching staff at Canadian universities, by rank, sexo.
https://doi.org/10.25318/3710007601-eng; Mesa 37-10-0077-

01: Number and median age of full-time teaching staff at Cana-
dian universities, by highest earned degree, staff functions, rank,
sexo. https://doi.org/10.25318/3710007701-eng

Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, k. (2016). Factors
affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the
literature. cienciometria, 107(3), 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11192-016-1889-2

Espiga, l., & Horta, h. (2021a). Studies on women academics in Chi-
nese academic journals: A review. Higher Education Quarterly,
76(4), 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12351

Espiga, l., & Horta, h. (2021b). Women academics in Chinese
universidades: A historical perspective. Higher Education, 82(5),
865–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00669-1

Teele, D. l., & Thelen, k. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication
patterns in political science. PS—Political Science and Politics,
50(2), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985
Thelwall, METRO. (2020). Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018
in six out of seven English-speaking nations. Journal of the Asso-
ciation for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), 979–990.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24316

tomás, norte. r., piscina, D. J., & Herbers, j. METRO. (2015). Gender in sci-
ence and engineering faculties: Demographic inertia revisited.
MÁS UNO, 10(10), e0139767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0139767, PubMed: 26488899

Van Noorden, R. (2018). Hong Kong, Malasia, Singapur, South
Korea and Taiwan are investing heavily in research as an engine
for growth. Naturaleza, 558(7711), 500–501. https://doi.org/10.1038
/d41586-018-05505-2, PubMed: 29950637

Wagner, C. S., & Jonkers, k. (2017). Open countries have strong
ciencia. Naturaleza, 550(7674), 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1038
/550032a, PubMed: 28980660

Wang, METRO. T., & Degol, j. l. (2017). Gender gap in science, technol-
ogia, engineering, y matemáticas (STEM): Current knowledge,
implications for practice, política, and future directions. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10648-015-9355-x, PubMed: 28458499

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, l. (2012). Academic motherhood: Cómo

faculty manage work and family. Rutgers University Press.

Weisshaar, k. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender
gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2),
529–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox052

Oeste, j. D., Jacquet, J., Rey, METRO. METRO., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. t.
(2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. MÁS UNO,
8(7), e0066212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212,
PubMed: 23894278

Witteman, h. o., Hendricks, METRO., Straus, S., & Tannenbaum, C.
(2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or
the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.
The Lancet, 393(10171), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0140-6736(18)32611-4, PubMed: 30739688

Yu, METRO., Krehbiel, METRO., Thompson, S., & Miljkovic, t. (2020). An explo-
ration of gender gap using advanced data science tools: Actuarial
research community. cienciometria, 123(2), 767–789. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03412-w

zhang, METRO., zhang, GRAMO., Liu, y., Zhai, X., & Han, X. (2020). Scientists’
genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical
study of Chinese universities and research institutes. Journal of Infor-
métrica, 14(4), 101068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101068

Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas

1023

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

3
4
1
0
0
3
2
0
7
0
7
8
7
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
2
1
8
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3 ARTÍCULO DE INVESTIGACIÓN imagen

Descargar PDF