RESEARCH ARTICLE - Am MIT spezialisierte KI-Forschung

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Mike Thelwall

Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Vereinigtes Königreich

Keine offenen Zugänge

Tagebuch

Schlüsselwörter: academic careers, citation impact, field differences, gender differences, Forschung
evaluation

Zitat: Thelwall, M. (2020). Gender
differences in citation impact for 27
fields and six English-speaking
countries 1996–2014. Quantitative
Science Studies, 1(2), 599–617. https://
doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00038

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00038

Erhalten: 15 Oktober 2019
Akzeptiert: 11 Januar 2020

Korrespondierender Autor:
Mike Thelwall
m.thelwall@wlv.ac.uk

Handling-Editor:
Ludo Waltman

ABSTRAKT

Initiatives addressing the lack of women in many academic fields, and the general lack of
senior women, need to be informed about the causes of any gender differences that may affect
career progression, including citation impact. Previous research about gender differences in
journal article citation impact has found the direction of any difference to vary by country and
field, but has usually avoided discussions of the magnitude and wider significance of any
differences and has not been systematic in terms of fields and/or time. This study investigates
differences in citation impact between male and female first-authored research for 27 broad
fields and six large English-speaking countries (Australia, Kanada, Ireland, Neuseeland, Die
Vereinigtes Königreich, and the USA) aus 1996 Zu 2014. The results show an overall female first author citation
advantage, although in most broad fields it is reversed in all countries for some years.
International differences include Medicine having a female first author citation advantage for
all years in Australia, but a male citation advantage for most years in Canada. There was no
general trend for the gender difference to increase or decrease over time. The average effect
size is small, Jedoch, and unlikely to have a substantial influence on overall gender
differences in researcher careers.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

EINFÜHRUNG

Gender differences have disappeared or greatly shrunk in many areas of life, such as academic
achievement at school and employment rates, reflecting broadly similar psychological capa-
Fähigkeiten (Hyde, 2005). They are nevertheless pervasive in some aspects of life in many coun-
versucht, such as average income and job choices. In academia, the proportion of women is
increasing overall, with women forming the majority in some fields, such as nursing and psy-
chology (depending on the country). Trotzdem, some fields have been slow to recruit
women and there is a widespread problem with a lack of women in senior positions (Solera &
Musumeci, 2017). Initiatives to redress the balance, such as Athena SWAN (Vereinigtes Königreich) and NSF-
ADVANCE (USA) need to be informed about the reasons for the continuing problems, ob
they include sexism, systemic bias, or other factors (Van Miegroet, Glass, et al., 2019). Zitat
impact may influence gender disparities when it is considered during funding, appointment and
promotion decisions. Previous studies have found that women are more, equally, or less
cited than men overall, depending on country and field (Sonst, 2017; Larivière, Ni, et al.,
2013; Thelwall, 2018A). Zum Beispiel, within medicine, a small male first author citation advan-
tage has been attributed to greater male self-citations, journal prestige, and international col-
laboration (Andersen, Schneider, et al., 2019), but another medicine-based study found that

Urheberrechte ©: © 2020 Mike Thelwall.
Veröffentlicht unter Creative Commons
Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Lizenz.

Die MIT-Presse

Gender differences in citation impact

male greater self-citation was due to greater male output (Mishra, Fegley, et al., 2018), presum-
ably due to male researchers being older, on average, and taking fewer career breaks and pe-
riods of part-time working for carer responsibilities. There is no clear overall pattern to the
direction of citation gender disparities in terms of time, discipline, or country and most prior
studies have not discussed the effect size of any difference. These shortfalls need to be ad-
dressed systematically on a large scale to draw conclusions about where gender differences
in citation rates are important enough to need addressing in any country or field.

Several explanations have been proposed for field variations in gender differences in acade-
mia, typically focusing either on participation or promotion. Wissenschaft, Technologie, Maschinenbau,
and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have often been the focus, due to low female participation in
viele. Explanations have sometimes explored early life patterns and college degree choices.
Explicit bias by senior male academics against women in some areas is a logical possibility,
as are mainly male informal “old boys” circles in some that hire, promote, or reward insiders.
More subtly, men may not appreciate the value of the work of women if they tend to work on
different goals, with different methods or with different working practices. Some of these build
into the idea that subjects can have “chilly climates” for female applicants and participants
(Simon, Wagner, & Killion, 2017; Walton, Logel, et al., 2015), making them feel unwelcome,
unappreciated or out of place. At least for STEM subjects in the USA, Jedoch, explicit bias
does not seem to be an influential determinant of academic career outcomes (Ceci &
Williams, 2011). This is a controversial issue and there are gender differences in academics’
and others’ assessment of the strength of evidence for and against the influence of gender bias
in academia (Handley, Braun, et al., 2015; Moss-Racusin, Molenda, & Cramer, 2015).
Darüber hinaus, it is not clear why bias might occur in fields that remain male-dominated, solch
as mathematics, but not in those that have shifted from male to female, such as veterinary
science and psychology. Gender differences in abilities are also unlikely explanatory vari-
fähig, because they seem to be minor and cover specialist tasks (Hines, 2011). There are stron-
ger differences in field-related adult knowledge and expertise, but these may be accounted for by
school-age social factors leading boys and girls toward different hobbies and school subjects
(Ceci & Williams, 2011).

An explanation for field differences in participation with empirical evidence from vocational
Psychologie (about largely nonacademic careers) is that women are more likely to have com-
munal career goals, wishing to help society in their careers and wider lives, whereas men are
more likely to prioritize self-advancement (Diekman, Steinberg, et al., 2017). Within academia,
this may translate into women being more likely to choose obviously socially helpful fields,
such as education, nursing, medicine, social work, and immunology, rather than a more ab-
stract subject, such as mathematics, or a more indirect field, such as engineering, Politik, oder
computer science. Although there is no direct evidence for this hypothesis within academia,
women in the USA and India have been shown to be more prevalent in people-related subjects
(Thelwall, Bailey, et al., 2019A, 2019B), which are likely to be more directly socially helpful
(z.B., nursing). If women are more likely to choose an academic subject for its affordance of
communal benefits, then it is possible that women would also be more likely to target wider
societal impact for their work. There is a little evidence in support of this in the form of appar-
ently greater educational impact for research authored by women (Thelwall, 2018B).

Previous field-based studies of gender differences in citation impact have usually taken one
of three approaches, with different interpretations that should not be conflated. Studies com-
paring career statistics (z.B., total citations, h-index, proportion of top-cited papers over a long
Zeitraum) have tended to find that men are cited more often. These reflect biases against women
(for a comparison, see Reed, Enders, et al., 2011) because career statistics do not take into

Quantitative Science Studies

600

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

Figur 1. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for Australia.

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

account that men care less (have shorter career breaks and part-time working for carer respon-
sibilities for children and disabled and elderly dependants), have longer working lives (older
retirement ages), and are demographically more prevalent in older age groups (because of the
increasing proportion of female researchers over time).

Studies analyzing citations per paper do not have the same career problems, although they
may be affected (probably differently by field) by gender differences in the proportions of junior
and senior researchers. Citations per paper investigations have normally used statistical regres-
sion to assess whether gender helps to explain citation rates, taking a range of other variables into
account (z.B., field, Jahr, team size, team internationality, title length, abstract readability, jour-
nal impact factor). The simple comparison approach (used in the current article) instead just as-
sesses whether there is a gender difference in average citation rates overall. This is relevant from
the perspective of assessing whether any citation differentials could impact career progression
(appointments, promotions). The simple approach does not explain why differences occur,
which could be due to bias, different tendencies to work in teams, differences in the citation rates
of subtopics studied by men and women, oder, when a field is dominated by one gender, Geschlecht
homophily in citation patterns (Dion, Sumner, & Mitchell, 2018; Potthoff & Zimmermann, 2017).
A regression study might find that papers authored by women are more cited, but only because
women work in larger teams and larger team papers tend to be more cited, irrespective of gender.
A simple comparison in this case would just find an advantage for women.

Quantitative Science Studies

601

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 2. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over 1996–2014 for Australia.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

Regressions use sets of independent variables encoding implicit assumptions about gender.
Zum Beispiel, if a regression includes the number of title words, then it might conclude that
es gibt kein (residual) gender difference in citation rates because gender differences in title
lengths “explain” overall differences. Trotzdem, this would not prove that women do not
tend to create longer titles for salient reasons, such as a desire to express the impact of their
Papier. Ähnlich, if impact factors are included in a regression, then this ignores the fact that
better papers may tend to be published in journals with higher impact factors due to author
choices. The following list summarizes current mixed evidence about gender differences in
citation rates for individual fields.

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

(cid:129) Papers authored by men cited more: astronomy (astronomy papers in three major as-
tronomy journals, Science and Nature 1950–2015; simple comparison, and regression
type approach) (Caplar, Tacchella, & Birrer, 2017); international relations (papers in 12
journals 1980–2006; regression) (Maliniak, Powers, & Walter, 2013); epidemiology,
mostly due to highly cited articles (papers in six journals 2018–12; simple comparison,
and with h-index) (Schisterman, Swanson, et al., 2017).

(cid:129) Statistically insignificant gender difference: psychology in Spain ( Web of Science papers
In 2007; average citation rate comparison) (Barrios, Villarroya, & Borrego, 2013); ecol-
Ogy (six journals 1997–2004; regression) (Borsuk, Budden, et al., 2009); dendrochronol-
Ogy (articles by 40 male or female researchers; average citation rate comparison)

Quantitative Science Studies

602

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 3. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for Canada.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

(Copenheaver, Goldbeck, & Cherubini, 2010); economics, political science, and soci-
ology (nine journals 1983–2003; with and without regression) (Lynn, Noonan, et al.,
2019); peace research (one journal 1983–2008; regression) (Østby, Strand, et al., 2013).
(cid:129) Papers authored by women cited more: management in Australia, Kanada, Die
Niederlande, the USA, and the UK, but nonsignificant for 14 andere Länder (46,549
Web of Science articles 2007–2013; regression) (Nielsen, 2017); law reviews (1980–
1995 in HeinOnline; regression) (Ayres & Vars, 2000) and later confirmed (1990–
2010 from the US-based HeinOnline; regression) (Cotropia & Petherbridge, 2017);
Canadian political science ( Web of Science articles 1985–2005; regression)
(Montpetit, Blais, & Foucault, 2008).

To generate systematic evidence of field-based gender differences, this article assesses av-
erage gender differences in citation rates within 27 broad fields, using narrow fields for citation
count normalization, for Scopus-indexed journal articles 1996–2014 from six large English-
speaking countries. This uses most of the six million articles in a previous study of national
gender differences (Thelwall, in press), excluding Jamaica and the years 2016–2018, to focus
on disciplines rather than countries. This study is systematic in terms of covering all broad
fields of academia and over two decades of research. New methods are used to investigate

Quantitative Science Studies

603

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 4. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over 1996–2014 for Canada.

gender differences, designed to identify the direction, statistical significance and practical sig-
nificance of any differences for each field and country. The following research questions drive
the study, using the simple comparison approach:

(cid:129) RQ1: In which fields is there a gender difference in citation impact?
(cid:129) RQ2: Does the answer to RQ1 vary between countries?
(cid:129) RQ3: Does the answer to RQ1 vary over time?

2. METHODEN

The research design was to recycle a large and reasonably comprehensive collection of refer-
eed journal articles covering a long period, separate them by gender, and identify the magni-
tude and statistical significance of any gender differences in citation impact separately for
multiple fields and countries. This is a follow-up of a previous study with the same data that
did not analyze individual fields (Thelwall, in press).

2.1. Data

Scopus was chosen as the data source because it has a larger set of articles than the Web of
Wissenschaft (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Only standard (nonreview) journal articles were

Quantitative Science Studies

604

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

Figur 5. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for Ireland.

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

enthalten, because these are the primary vehicles to convey research findings in most fields.
Conference papers, Monographien, book chapters, and other outputs were ignored because
there are not indexed systematically enough to effectively normalize their citation impact.
These document types are important for the arts, humanities, some social sciences, computing,
some engineering specialisms, and computational linguistics, so the article-based results for
these fields here are not robust. This primarily applies to the following Scopus fields: Arts &
Humanities; Computer Science; Energy; Maschinenbau; and Social Sciences.

The period 1996–2014 was covered, as downloaded in November–December 2018 aus
Scopus. The start year 1996 is the logical choice, as the first after a Scopus coverage expan-
sion. The end year 2014 gives every article at least 3 years to attract citations, which is some-
times considered the minimum window size for citation analysis (Abramo, Cicero, &
D’Angelo, 2011; Wang, 2013). Jedoch, for each article, citations to 2018 were used rather
than a fixed time window, as this would give more comprehensive data.

The six countries analyzed were Australia, Kanada, Ireland, Neuseeland, the UK, und das
USA. These are all large predominantly English-speaking countries with a partially shared cul-
ture and similar levels of economic development. They represent a set for which there is no
obvious reason why their results should differ and so form an interesting case in the sense that
any differences must have more subtle causes. The largest excluded country, Jamaica, did not
publish enough to allow broad field differences to be detected systematically. The focus on

Quantitative Science Studies

605

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 6. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over 1996–2014 for Ireland.

large countries is essential for the possibility of statistically significant results at the field
Ebene.

Articles were assigned a gender by using a first name heuristic on the first author. Der erste
author tends to contribute the most in all broad fields (Larivière, Desrochers, et al., 2016) sogar
though there is a degree of alphabetical authorship in some (Waltman, 2012) and the last
author may be a senior author who determined the overall direction in others (Mongeon,
Schmied, et al., 2017), and for some PhD projects. Trotzdem, except in the minority of alpha-
betical (or partial alphabetical) ordering cases, the first author is the only one who can be
reliably assumed to have made a major contribution to the published study. In the absence
of systematic cross-science author contribution statements, this seems like a better choice than
assuming that all authors contribute equally or weighting the first and last authors. The effect
of this decision is to increase noise in the data (extra variability) for multiauthor articles when
authors with a gender differing from the first author made a substantial contribution. Es kann sein
also introduce systematic biases in fields where, Zum Beispiel, senior men tend to make sub-
stantial contributions, but the first author is a junior woman who conducted most of the
Forschung.

Quantitative Science Studies

606

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 7. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for New Zealand.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

The first name list used was based on the US census 2010, including frequently occurring
names that were used at least 90% by one gender. This was augmented by checking the most
common other first names (as extracted from the Scopus data) with GenderAPI.com
(Santamaría & Mihaljević, 2018), retaining first names as gendered when they were at least
90% of one gender and occurred reasonably frequently (z.B., 10 times if 100% for one gen-
der, increasing to 500 times if 90% for one gender). This heuristic is imperfect because ac-
ademics may have gender-neutral names, Chinese gendered names that are gender neutral in
the Latin alphabet (z.B., Wei), gender-neutral short names (z.B., Pat), or names that are a
different gender in another country (z.B., Nicola). A manual check of this method with the
US census names only, using personal home page gender identifications for 1,010 US aca-
demics, found it to be 96.5% accurate on US first authors (Thelwall et al., 2019B), und ein
check on the same academics with the updated method used in the current paper found
it to be 96.8% accurate. Example names with incorrectly guessed genders include Ronni,
Yen, Shae, and Juan. A check of a similar method with 95% monogender names from the
US census found that it agreed with Genni 2.0 (Schmied, Singh, & Torvik, 2013; Torvik, 2018;
Torvik & Agarwal, 2016) gender estimates (which include last name information to infer eth-
nicity) at a rate above 96% for various ethnicities for international PubMed authors (Mishra
et al., 2018). Daher, the papers should be correctly identified for gender nearly all of the time
for the USA, although the accuracy may be slightly lower for the other six countries despite

Quantitative Science Studies

607

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 8. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over 1996–2014 for New Zealand.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

the partly shared cultural heritage. Sample sizes for all field/year/country/gender combina-
tions can be found within the spreadsheets holding the graphs in the online supplement
(https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8081546).

Citation counts were log transformed to reduce skewing and outliers, then normalized for the
field and year of publication to allow cross-field, multiple-year comparisons. The log transfor-
mation was ln(1 + C), Wo 1 is added because many articles are uncited. The field normaliza-
tion is to divide each article ln(1 + C) with the average of all the ln(1 + C) values for all articles
published in the same Scopus narrow field (336 in Summe: Sonst [2019]). For articles given mul-
tiple narrow field classifications, the average used in the denominator is the average of all rele-
vant field averages. This is referred to as the normalized log-transformed citation score (NLCS).
For any set of articles, the arithmetic mean of their NLCS is the mean normalized log-
transformed citation score (MNLCS) indicator (Thelwall, 2017) variant of the mean normalized
citation score (MNCS) (Waltman, van Eck, et al., 2011). The raw data is therefore a large set of
NLCS, each associated with a country, Geschlecht, and Scopus broad field.

Scopus field classifications were used even though they are probably not as effective for
citation analysis as the field definitions of the Web of Science or Science-Metrix (Klavans &
Boyack, 2017) because classifications were needed for all articles in the set to maximize sta-
tistical power. The Science-Metrix scheme is relatively recent (Archambault, Beauchesne, &
Caruso, 2011) and may not cover older journals.

Quantitative Science Studies

608

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 9. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for the UK.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

2.2. Analyses

Gender differences may vary by country, Zeit, and discipline, generating a three-way analysis.
The time effect could be nonlinear and the national MNLCS is impacted by changes in the
journal coverage of Scopus, generating sudden national increases or decreases. A regression-
type model including time is therefore not appropriate. Stattdessen, two separate analyses are
reported for each country: gender differences in disciplines, assuming no gender difference
variability over time; and gender differences over time, assuming no gender difference variabil-
ity between disciplines.

For each country/field/year combination, a t-test was conducted to compare male NLCS
with female NLCS. The effect size was calculated by the difference in the means divided by
the pooled standard deviation. All year/field/country combinations with fewer than two arti-
cles or excess kurtosis >3 or skew >3 were excluded from all calculations. After this exclusion,
the t-test is a reasonable choice. Sample sizes, standard deviations, skewness, and individual
t-test values are available in the online supplement at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.
8081546. Average effect sizes across all years and the number of positive tests at the
p = 0.05 level are reported. Graphs were produced for each country/field combination for
the average male and female NLCS to assess interactions between fields, Jahre, and countries
im Laufe der Zeit. The standard normal distribution formula with the t-distribution was used for
confidence intervals on these graphs.

Quantitative Science Studies

609

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 10. The female–male NLCS effect size (D) averaged over 1996–2014 for the UK.

3. ERGEBNISSE

3.1. RQ1 and RQ2

In all countries, there is a statistically significant gender citation advantage for women for mul-
tiple fields and years and a statistically significant gender citation advantage for men for mul-
tiple fields and years, with overall effect sizes being small (Figures 1–12). Gesamt, es ist mehr
common for there to be a statistically significant advantage for women than for men, und für
the average effect size to be in favor of women (Figures 1–12).

It is rare for field citation advantages to be dominated by one gender in a country. The main
exceptions are Medicine in Australia, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics in the
USA, and Arts and Humanities in the USA, all of which have a female citation advantage
in at least 90% of the years studied. Two of these are not discipline-wide patterns because
Medicine and Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics have mainly male citation ad-
vantages in Canada. Im Gegensatz, the Arts and Humanities have a female citation advantage

Quantitative Science Studies

610

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

Figur 11. The number of years 1996–2014 for which the female NLCS is statistically significantly
different from the male NLCS for the USA.

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

overall (average effect size) and a higher proportion of years with a statistically significant fe-
male citation advantage in all countries. Canadian medicine is the only case where men have a
citation advantage for at least 50% of the years. The Social Sciences also have an international
female citation advantage: All countries have more years with a female citation advantage than
a male citation advantage, and some countries have a substantial difference. There does not
seem to be a relationship between gender proportions in a field and citation advantages, Wie-
immer. Zum Beispiel, female-dominated nursing and male-dominated mathematics both have in-
ternational variations in which gender tends to be cited statistically significantly most often.

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

3.2. RQ3

There is no trend for gender citation differentials to change over time. No country showed a
pattern of gradually increasing or decreasing gendered shares of significant results or effect
sizes. The possible slight exception is the USA, where there was a consistent decrease in
the overall female advantage average effect size from 2010 Zu 2014 and a broadly decreasing
trend from 2004 Zu 2014 (Figur 13; corresponding graphs for the other countries are available
in the online supplement: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8081546).

Graphs for male and female average citation rates for all country and year combinations are
available in the online supplement (6 × 27 = 162 graphs). From a large number of graphs,
some are likely to show trends by accident, so these are difficult to draw strong conclusions

Quantitative Science Studies

611

Gender differences in citation impact

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 12. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over 1996–2014 for the USA.

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 13. The female–male NLCS effect size (D ) averaged over all 27 broad fields for the USA, and the number of broad fields (out of 27) für
which the female NLCS is statistically significantly different from the male NLCS for the USA. Similar graphs for the other countries are avail-
able in the online supplement: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8081546.

Quantitative Science Studies

612

Gender differences in citation impact

Female and male MNLCS 1996–2014 for Engineering in the USA. Error bars show 95%
Figur 14.
confidence intervals. Similar graphs for all other countries and disciplines are available online
(https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8081546).

aus. Figur 14 (Engineering in the USA) shows periods with male (1999–2002) and female
(1996–98; 2006–11) dominance, explaining the partly male and partly female significant re-
sults for a single subject and country. This graph also illustrates the impact of changes in the
coverage of Scopus (the 1999–2000 dip) on the MNLCS magnitude.

4. DISKUSSION

Although this seems to be the largest systematic analysis of gender differences in citation rates
yet, it has several limitations. The inclusion within Scopus categories of unusual or inappro-
priate journals with atypical authorship ratios for the category could influence each MNLCS. In
addition, Scopus narrow categories (used for MNLCS) may combine specialisms with differing
gender compositions and citation rates (z.B., librarianship and scientometrics). The statistical
significance tests assume that the citation counts for each gender are independent of each
andere, which is false because one researcher may publish a set of high (or low) cited articles
in the same year because they are working on a high (or low) citation topic. The use of multiple
tests without a familywise correction procedure (z.B., Bonferroni) means that each individual test
is unsafe; only the patterns are important. The gender identification heuristic may systematically
exclude people with unusual gender characteristics for a country (z.B., with gender-neutral Sikh
names in the UK). Each country’s academics may also have research characteristics learned
from another nation that educated them, and gender may influence this. Zum Beispiel, one gen-
der may be more willing to travel to or from a country for a PhD position or research post. Der
analysis method assumes that the first author is the main author and that the other researchers
had a minor contribution, which is not always true. In some fields, the last author is senior and
may largely determine the research topic and methods. The results should not be extrapolated
beyond the six English-speaking countries covered because of international differences in the
relationship between gender and citation rates. This is evident in the results above, despite the
relatively homogeneous set of countries. The results do not consider career stages, so it is
possible that gender differences in citation rates differ between younger and older researchers.
Endlich, the results do not consider factors other than gender, field, and year that may influence
citation rates, such as team size (Larivière, Gingras, et al., 2015) and researcher seniority (Slyder,
Stein, et al., 2011). Daher, when there is a female citation advantage, it is not possible to infer that
a paper authored by a woman is likely to be more cited than a paper by a comparable (z.B., PhD
student, postdoc, junior or senior faculty) man.

Quantitative Science Studies

613

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Gender differences in citation impact

The overall female citation advantage suggests that when citations are used in career pro-
gression decisions in a fair way (d.h., on a per-paper basis or considering career gaps and pe-
riods of part-time working), then women would have an advantage more often than men.
Trotzdem, it is not clear that decision makers would often have detailed enough citation
evidence (either field-normalized scores, or making comparisons only between papers from
the same narrow field and year) to make an appropriately informed decision. Darüber hinaus, Die
differences in citation rates are not large. An effect size of 0.2 is “small” (Cohen, 1988) Und
average effect sizes are typically around 0.1. Given papers authored by a man and woman
chosen at random, an effect size of 0.1 translates to the probability of the woman’s paper being
more cited (ignoring ties) Sein 0.53. For an effect size of 0.2 the corresponding probability is
0.56 (Coe, 2002). Daher, it seems that the gender difference is typically not relevant. The largest
average effect size of 0.7 gives a corresponding probability of 0.67. Daher, for two-thirds of
gendered pairs of New Zealand Decision Sciences papers, the women’s papers would be
more cited (using NLCS). This is a more substantial difference, but less than 30% of years have
a statistically significant female advantage because the large effect size is based on low num-
bers of papers. Gesamt, Dann, it seems unlikely that the tendency for a female citation advan-
tage has translated into a female career advantage often enough to make a difference to female
academic career prospects overall.

Previous studies have found female (Thelwall, 2018A), männlich (Larivière et al., 2013), or non-
bedeutsam (Thelwall, in press) citation advantages for the USA overall. The above results sug-
gest an overall female citation advantage, varying by field, but with a mostly tiny average
effect size: Only Dentistry has an effect size above 0.2. None of the field-based studies re-
viewed in the introduction are directly comparable in terms of field and country coverage,
except that the regression-based female citation advantage for Management in Australia,
Kanada, the UK, and the USA (Nielsen, 2017) broadly agrees with the Business,
Management, and Accounting category results above.

The two broad fields with a reasonably consistent gendered citation advantage, Sozial
Sciences and Arts and Humanities, are also probably the most diverse in terms of the narrow
fields subsumed within them (z.B., from Law to Cultural Studies and from History to Visual and
Performing Arts). These may also be the broad fields in which citations are least valued, partly
due to the lower importance of journal articles (z.B., REF2014, 2015). They may also be the
fields in which the variety within narrow fields is greatest. Internal narrow field diversity would
affect the MNLCS, so the results are not strong evidence for a generic female citation advan-
tage in these two broad areas.

The results do not support prior claims of a citation bias against research by women be-
cause there is no broad field in which female first-authored research is not statistically signif-
icantly more cited for some years. Trotzdem, the frequent (small) female citation advantage
is more impressive given the greater male self-citation tendency (King, Bergstrom, et al., 2017;
even though it is a second-order effect: Mishra et al., 2018), gender citation homophily (gegeben
that most researchers are male), and a higher proportion of senior men (although seniority does
not necessarily associate with higher citation impact). It is still possible that there is a degree of
deliberate or unconscious gender bias in citing that has reduced the magnitude of the female
citation advantage in some or all fields, Jahre, and countries.

It is not possible to infer a cause-and-effect relationship in the data that would explain the
overall tendency for female first-authored research to be statistically significantly more cited
then male first-authored research in more fields or years than the other way around. This is not
just because of the lack of a regression approach with an adequate selection of independent

Quantitative Science Studies

614

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Gender differences in citation impact

Variablen. Zum Beispiel, if women tended to operate in larger teams and team size was the
apparent “cause” of higher citation rates for women, an explanation would be needed for
women being more likely to find themselves in larger teams, leaving open the possibility that
gender is still important. Trotzdem, it is possible that there is a small underlying tendency
for women to generate more impactful research as a side-effect of being more likely to have
communal career goals (Diekman et al., 2017).

5. CONCLUSIONS

The results show a general, but small, tendency for female first-authored standard journal ar-
ticles to be more cited than male first-authored standard journal articles in all 27 broad Scopus
fields 1996–2014 in Australia, Kanada, Ireland, Neuseeland, the UK, and the USA. This ten-
dency varies between fields and years in a way that does not appear to have a systematic
pattern, except for a reasonably consistent tendency for a female citation advantage in
Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities in all countries and multiple years (more than the
other way around). Jedoch, the average effect size of the difference is almost certainly too
small to have much influence on academic appointments, promotions, and tenure, in any field
or country (from the six considered) over the past two decades. This is particularly true because
promotion committees will not have access to the fine-grained field-normalized data here,
welche, due to their skew-resistant formulae, are more precise than available in the Web of
Science and Scopus. The online graphs associated with this article (https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.8081546) give the most comprehensive data yet on gender differences and effect
sizes for journal articles across academia, at least for the six large countries covered.

Based on these results, prior findings of a per-paper citation advantage for men and women
for individual subjects and/or countries and/or small year ranges should not be extrapolated,
because the results here show nonsystematic variations in these factors over time, zwischen
nations, and between fields.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The author has no competing interests to declare.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research received no funding.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data behind the results are on FigShare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8081546).

VERWEISE

Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). Assessing the vary-
ing level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the ci-
tation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659–667.
Andersen, J. P., Schneider, J. W., Jagsi, R., & Nielsen, M. W. (2019).
Gender variations in citation distributions in medicine are very
small and due to self-citation and journal prestige. Elife, 8,
e45374. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45374

Archambault, É., Beauchesne, Ö. H., & Caruso, J. (2011). Towards
a multilingual, comprehensive and open scientific journal on-
tology. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of
the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics
(S. 66–77). Südafrika: Durban.

Ayres, ICH., & Vars, F. E. (2000). Determinants of citations to articles in
elite law reviews. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S1), 427–450.
Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Scientific produc-
tion in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics, 95(1),
15–23.

Borsuk, R. M., Budden, A. E., Leimu, R., Aarssen, L. W., & Lortie,
C. J. (2009). The influence of author gender, national language
and number of authors on citation rate in ecology. Open
Ecology Journal, 2(1), 25–28.

Caplar, N., Tacchella, S., & Birrer, S. (2017). Quantitative evalua-
tion of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation
counts. Nature Astronomy, 1(6), 0141.

Quantitative Science Studies

615

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Gender differences in citation impact

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes
of women’s underrepresentation in science. Verfahren der
Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften, 108(8), 3157–3162.

Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid. Paper presented at the
British Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral

Wissenschaften. Oxford: Routledge.

Copenheaver, C. A., Goldbeck, K., & Cherubini, P. (2010). Lack of
gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochronolo-
gists: What is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Research,
66(2), 127–134.

Cotropia, C. A., & Petherbridge, L. (2017). Gender disparity in
law review citation rates. William & Mary Law Review, 59,
771.

Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Braun, E. R., Belanger, A. L., &
Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagieren-
ment, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in
STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
21(2), 142–175.

Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered ci-
tation patterns across political science and social science meth-
odology fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327.

Sonst. (2017). Gender in the Global Research Landscape.
https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/campaigns/
gender-17

(2019). Content—How Scopus Works [Download
source title list link; ASJC worksheet]. https://www.elsevier.com/
solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content

Sonst.

Handley, ICH. M., Braun, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Schmied, J. L.
(2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in sci-
ence is in the eye of the beholder. Verfahren des Nationalen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 112(43), 13201–13206.

Hines, M. (2011). Gender development and the human brain.

Jahresrückblick auf die Neurowissenschaften, 34, 69–88.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. amerikanisch

Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.

King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & Westen, J. D.
(2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation
across fields and over time. Socius, 3, 2378023117738903.
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2017). Which type of citation anal-
ysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and tech-
nical knowledge? Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 68(4), 984–998.

Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R.
(2013). Global gender disparities in science. Natur, 504
(7479), 211–213.

Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-
Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division
of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3),
417–435.

Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015). Team
size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technologie, 66(7), 1323–1332.

Lynn, F. B., Noonan, M. C., Sauder, M., & Andersson, M. A. (2019).
A rare case of gender parity in academia. Social Forces, soy126.
Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender cita-
tion gap in international relations. International Organization,
67(4), 889–922.

Mishra, S., Fegley, B. D., Diesner, J., & Torvik, V. ICH. (2018). Self-
citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender.
PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0195773.

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web
of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics,
106(1), 213–228.

Mongeon, P., Schmied, E., Joyal, B., & Larivière, V. (2017). The rise of
the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of la-
bor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship.
PLOS ONE, 12(9), e0184601.

Montpetit, É., Blais, A., & Foucault, M. (2008). What does it take for
a Canadian political scientist to be cited? Social Science
Quarterly, 89(3), 802–816.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Molenda, A. K., & Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can
evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gen-
der bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2),
194–209.

Nielsen, M. W. (2017). Gender and citation impact in management

Forschung. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1213–1228.

Østby, G., Strand, H., Nordås, R., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2013).
Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? Publication patterns
and citation rates for Journal of Peace Research, 1983–2008.
International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 493–506.

Potthoff, M., & Zimmermann, F. (2017). Is there a gender-based
fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of
the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations.
Scientometrics, 112(2), 1047–1063.

Reed, D. A., Enders, F., Lindor, R., McClees, M., & Lindor, K. D.
(2011). Gender differences in academic productivity and leader-
ship appointments of physicians throughout academic careers.
Academic Medicine, 86(1), 43–47.

REF2014. (2015). Research Excellence Framework 2014: Panel
Overview Reports. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/panels/
paneloverviewreports/

Santamaría, L., & Mihaljević, H. (2018). Comparison and bench-
mark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer
Wissenschaft, 4, e156.

Schisterman, E. F., Swanson, C. W., Lu, Y. L., & Mumford, S. L.
(2017). The changing face of epidemiology: Gender disparities
in citations? Epidemiology, 28(2), 159–168.

Simon, R. M., Wagner, A., & Killion, B. (2017). Gender and choos-
ing a STEM major in college: Femininity, masculinity, chilly cli-
mate, and occupational values. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 54(3), 299–323.

Slyder, J. B., Stein, B. R., Sams, B. S., Walker, D. M., Jacob Beale,
B., Feldhaus, J. J., & Copenheaver, C. A. (2011). Citation pattern
and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individ-
ual. Scientometrics, 89(3), 955–966.

Schmied, B., Singh, M., & Torvik, V. ICH. (2013). A search engine
approach to estimating temporal changes in gender orienta-
first names. Proceedings of the ACM/ IEEE Joint
tion of
Conference on Digital Libraries ( JCDL 2013). New York, New York:
ACM Press (S. 199–208). https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.
2467720

Solera, C., & Musumeci, R. (2017). The persisting glass ceiling in
academia: A multidimensional cross-national perspective. Polis,
31(1), 17–44.

Thelwall, M. (2017). Three practical field normalised alternative in-
dicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics,
11(1), 128–151.

Thelwall, M. (2018A). Do females create higher impact research?
Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five
Länder. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1031–1041.

Thelwall, M. (2018B). Does female-authored research have more
educational impact than male-authored research? Zeitschrift für
Altmetrics, 1(1), P. 3.

Quantitative Science Studies

616

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
2
5
9
9
1
8
8
5
8
3
5
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
3
8
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Gender differences in citation impact

Thelwall, M.

(in press). Female citation impact superiority
1996–2018 in six out of seven English-speaking nations. Zeitschrift
of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12919

Thelwall, M., Bailey, C., Makita, M., Sud, P. & Madalli, D. (2019A).
Gender and Research Publishing in India: Uniformly high in-
equality? Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 118–131.

Thelwall, M., Bailey, C., Tobin, C. & Bradshaw, N. (2019B). Gender
differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people
and thing orientations explain the results? Zeitschrift für
Informetrics, 13(1), 149–169.

Torvik, V. ICH. (2018). Genni + Ethnea for the Author-ity 2009 dataset.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/
10.13012/B2IDB-9087546_V1

Torvik, V. ICH., & Agarwal, S. (2016). Ethnea: An instance-based eth-
nicity classifier based on geocoded author names in a large-scale
bibliographic database. International Symposium on Science of
Wissenschaft, March 22–23, 2016. Library of Congress, Washington,

Gleichstrom, USA. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/ bitstream/ handle/
2142/88927/ethnea.pdf

Van Miegroet, H., Glass, C., Callister, R. R., & Sullivan, K. (2019).
Unclogging the pipeline: Advancement to full professor in aca-
demic STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Zeitschrift, 38(2), 246–264.

Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical
authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4),
700–711.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., &
van Raan, A. F. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An em-
pirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481.

Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M.
P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate”
transform women’s experience, Beziehungen, and achievement
in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468.
Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact