ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE - Recherche en IA spécialisée au MIT

ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE

The gender gap in highly prestigious international
research awards, 2001–2020

American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, University Libraries, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon

Lokman I. Meho

un accès ouvert

journal

Mots clés: awards, gender disparity, gender gap, prizes, women in engineering, women in science

Citation: Meho, L. je. (2021). The gender
gap in highly prestigious international
research awards, 2001–2020.
Études scientifiques quantitatives, 2(3),
976–989. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a
_00148

EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00148

Peer Review:
https://publons.com/publon/10.1162
/qss_a_00148

Informations complémentaires:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00148

Reçu: 15 Janvier 2021
Accepté: 7 Juillet 2021

Auteur correspondant:
Lokman I. Meho
lmeho@aub.edu.lb

Éditeur de manipulation:
Ludo Waltman

droits d'auteur: © 2021 Lokman I. Meho.
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC PAR 4.0) Licence.

La presse du MIT

ABSTRAIT
This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international
research awards. I find that (un) depuis 2001 à 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by
2,011 les hommes et 262 femmes; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6%
during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards
were not received by women during 2016–2020; et (d) when the numbers of female full
professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in
biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Dans l'ensemble, women would be
expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today.
The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal
articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top
journaux, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international
collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a
result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

INTRODUCTION

Studies of the gender gap in academia almost always report that women are underrepresented
in scientific disciplines, publish fewer articles, receive fewer research grants and awards, sont
underpaid, progress more slowly through senior and leadership positions, have shorter re-
search careers, have fewer senior authorship positions and less presence in prestigious journals
and that their work attracts fewer citations relative to their male counterparts (Aguinis, Ji, & Joo,
2018; Freund, Raj et al., 2016; Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018; Huang, Gates et al.,
2020; Larivière, Ni et al., 2013; Lincoln, Pincus et al., 2012; Ma, Oliveira et al., 2019).
There is also extensive, yet fragmented, evidence that, despite the various science-policy ini-
tiatives, educational reform, and national and international legislation, the gender gap con-
tinues to persist, even among researchers with similar careers and records (Nielsen, 2017;
Sá, Cowley et al., 2020). Factors contributing to the gender gap in academia include, mais
are not limited to, family responsibilities, lifestyle choices, career preferences, stereotypes, im-
plicit bias, discriminatory work culture and environment, and lack of effective efforts and ini-
tiatives to address gender inequities (Blickenstaff, 2005; Ceci, Ginther et al., 2014; Ceci &
Williams, 2011; Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019; Holman et al., 2018; Holmes, Myles, &
Schneider, 2020; Leslie, Cimpian et al., 2015; Ngila, Boshoff et al., 2017; Reuben,
Sapienza, & Zingales, 2014; Shaw & Stanton, 2012; Wang & Degol, 2017).

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Research on women’s underrepresentation in academia—reviewed comprehensively by
Astegiano, Sebastián-González, and Castanho (2019) and Chan and Torgler (2020)—has fre-
quently focused on the gender productivity gap by comparing the research output of men and
femmes, as well as their citations, salaries, rank, leadership positions, funding, et ainsi de suite. Dans
contraste, this study examines the gender gap in peer recognition and, more specifically, dans
highly prestigious international research awards.

Studying the gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards is important
because such accolades are compelling signs of research excellence and are among the highest
forms of recognition that researchers accord one another (Gallus & Frey, 2017). En outre,
these awards put scientists on the radar of their peers, the media, funding agencies, tenure com-
mittees, and the public, help them advance in their careers, and encourage them to produce
more pioneering work (Ma et al., 2019). Institutions benefit, aussi, as high-profile awards
received by their members bestow prestige and impact in national and international rankings
and help attract more funding, donations, and high-quality students and faculty (Cadwalader,
Herbers, & Popejoy, 2014; Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019; Holmes et al., 2020; Lincoln et al.,
2012). Studying the gender gap in prestigious awards is also important to influence policies, ensemble
priorities, raise awareness, correct gender imbalances, improve practices for selecting
awardees, and provide another standard against which to check progress or lack thereof in
narrowing the gender gap in this area—benefits that would pay dividends for the whole scien-
tific community (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019; Holmes et al., 2020; Lincoln et al., 2012;
Lunnemann, Jensen, & Jauffred, 2019; Ma et al., 2019).

A major reason that necessitates this study of the gender gap is the substantial increase over
the past two decades in the number and proportion of women among senior faculty—defined
here as faculty members with the rank of full professor (professor hereafter). Par exemple, dans
the United States, the number and proportion of female professors in all fields increased from
37,051 (ou 23%) dans 2001 à 62,189 (ou 33%) dans 2018 (De Brey, Snyder et al., 2021); in Canada
depuis 4,830 (16%) dans 2001 à 6,975 (29%) dans 2019 (Statistics Canada, 2021); and in the United
Kingdom from 1,691 (13%) dans 2001 à 5,720 (28%) dans 2019 (European Commission, 2003;
Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2021). In the European Union countries, the number
and proportion of female professors increased from 22,343 (16%) dans 2004 à 35,896 (24%)
dans 2016 (European Commission, 2006, 2019), and in Australia, the figures for women with
ranks above senior lecturers (c'est à dire., associate professors and professors) increased from 1,213
(ou 17%) dans 2001 à 5,919 (ou 36%) dans 2020 (Higher Education Statistics, 2021). With these
developments, we must examine the extent to which improvements in women’s representation
at the highest levels in academia have led to equivalent shares of highly prestigious interna-
tional research awards. This study both provides empirical evidence of the extent of the gap
that may still persist in this area, and serves as a call to action for improving the status quo.

2. MÉTHODES

We collected data on highly prestigious international research awards from 2001 à 2020. Nous
identified the list of these awards using four methods to ensure quality and inclusiveness:

1. Tiered-checklist (Dennison, 2000), a method based here on six lists of highly prestigious
awards: Inventory of International Awards developed by the government of Canada1. list
of awards used by the Center for World University Rankings2, list of the International

1 https://www.canada.ca/en/services/science/researchfunding/researchawards.html
2 https://cwur.org/

Études scientifiques quantitatives

977

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Congress of Distinguished Awards3, list of “top” awards from the Shanghai Ranking4, list
de 213 “highly prestigious” awards developed by the US National Research Council for
assessing the quality of doctoral programs (also used as one of the four “phase I”
Association of American Universities membership indicators)5, and Wikipedia’s list of
prizes known as the Nobel of a field or the highest honors of a field6. We selected those
awards commonly mentioned on three or more of these six lists (n = 67 awards).

2. Reputation surveys, a method based on the results of two studies (Jiang & Liu, 2018; Zheng
& Liu, 2015) which sought the opinions of thousands of experts regarding 180 et 207
selected awards, respectivement. De la 110 awards rated by respondents important, very
important, or having the same importance as the Nobel Prize, we selected 70 that were
international in scope and were included in at least one of the six lists used in the above-
mentioned tiered-checklist method7; we imposed the latter criterion to reduce the impact
of potential bias within the survey method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014).

3. Highly Cited Researchers by Clarivate Analytics8. We considered highly prestigious all
awards that had 50% or more of their recipients classified as highly cited researchers in
le 2001 and 2014–2020 editions of Highly Cited Researchers (n = 82 awards).
4. Wikipedia Pageviews9. We used as a crude proxy for prestige the number of views the
Wikipedia award recipient’s page received from 2015 à 2020 (Ma et al., 2019). Nous
used as a threshold the median number of views of all awards identified through the
aforementioned three methods—32,500. This method resulted in identifying 84 awards.

The four methods together resulted in identifying 141 highly prestigious international
research awards: five, 10, 19, et 17 awards were unique to the first, second, troisième, and fourth
méthodes, respectivement. Agreement among methods regarding which awards are most prestigious
was largest in engineering, biological and life sciences, physical sciences, and multidisciplinary
awards and was lowest for mathematics, computer science, and social and behavioral sciences
awards (Table S1 in the supplementary information). Le 141 awards were received 3,040 times
par 2,011 les hommes et 405 times by 262 femmes. Our data show that in both cases, awards are
concentrated among a small group of elite researchers: 23% of women and 25% of men
received 50% of all awards in their respective gender categories (Ma & Uzzi, 2018).
De plus, among women, 23% received more than one award, 12% received more than
two awards, et 6% received more than three awards during 2001–2020 (Table S2 in the
supplementary information); among the men, the ratios were 26%, 11%, et 6%, respectivement
(Table S3 in the supplementary information), suggesting great similarities between both groups
with regard to potential for the presence of a Matthew Effect (Azoulay, Stuart, & Wang, 2014;
Chan, Gleeson, & Torgler, 2014; Merton, 1968).

3 https://www.icda.org/. We used only those awards rated most notable (5.0), gold standard (4.0), mega prizes

(3.6), challenge prizes (3.4), prototype awards (3.2), and highly esteemed (3.0).

4 https://www.shanghairanking.com/subject-survey/awards.html
5 https://researchdevelopment.vpr.virginia.edu/faculty-awards-directory-has-information-over-1000-honors

-and-awards

6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_prizes_known_as_the_Nobel_of_a_field_or_the_highest_honors_of_a

_field

7 The study by Zheng and Liu identified 99 awards rated important, very important, or as important as the
Nobel Prize. These 99 awards form the basis of the IREG List of International Academic Awards. Per the
definition of “international” in this study, 13 of the 99 awards did not meet the criterion; aussi, 16 awards
were not in any of the six lists used in the checklist method.

8 https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/researcher-recognition/
9 https://pageviews.toolforge.org/

Études scientifiques quantitatives

978

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

We focused on the 2001–2020 period to examine recent developments in the gender gap
in international research awards. We determined the gender of each award recipient through
their Wikipedia pages and, when necessary, Google searches. We considered an award inter-
national if given to recipients from more than one country during the most recent 10 années (pour
annual awards) or the most recent 20 years for awards given once every 2 or more years.
Examples of highly prestigious awards that did not meet this definition are the ASME Medal,
Henry Draper Medal, John Fritz Medal, John Scott Award, NAS Award in Chemical Sciences,
Priestley Medal, and the Welch Award in Chemistry. We defined a research award as one where
half or more of its recipients were affiliated with academic or research institutions.

We divided the awards and their recipients into six broad science and engineering fields
using the U.S. National Science Foundation classification: biological and life sciences (inclure-
ing health), computer science, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, and social and
behavioral sciences (including psychology)10. We assigned an award to a specific broad field
if at least 75% of its recipients came from that field. Par exemple, the Kavli Prize in
Nanoscience included three recipients whose major broad field is biological and life sciences
et 15 recipients whose major broad field is physical sciences. We considered this prize phys-
ical sciences because 15 (ou 83%) of its recipients came from this field. In the case of multi-
disciplinary awards (par exemple., the Japan Prize and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry—Seeman &
Restrepo, 2020), we assigned each given award the field to which the recipient belonged.
Comme 2,146 (ou 94%) of the award recipients had individual Wikipedia pages providing detailed
research and academic background information, we used the encyclopedia to determine the
research or academic fields of these authors.

We verified the accuracy of the Wikipedia field classification by examining the publication
records of the award recipients in both Scopus and Essential Science Indicators (ESI) databases.
These databases classify publications into 27 et 22 subject categories, respectivement (par exemple., chem-
istry, engineering, mathematics, and medicine/clinical medicine). For each award recipient, nous
retrieved all of their publications in the database and examined the three subject categories with
the largest number of publications. Results showed over 99% match between Wikipedia field
description of the award recipients and the subject categorization of awardees’ publications by
Scopus and ESI. We subsequently used these two databases as follows to determine the field
classification of the 127 awardees who lacked Wikipedia entries:

▪

If the great majority of an author’s publications were classified by Scopus or ESI under a
single subject category (par exemple., immunology) or two or more related subject categories (par exemple.,
medicine and neuroscience), we recorded this author under the broad field to which
these subjects belong (in this case, biological and life sciences).
In the cases where the great majority of an author’s publications were classified under two
or more different fields (par exemple., engineering and mathematics), and where Scopus and ESI
differed as to which field was most representative, we searched the web for additional in-
formation on the awardees to decide which of these two fields to assign to the author.

We used Scopus (author name search) to determine the institutional and country affiliation
of all 2,273 award recipients. For each award recipient, we recorded all the institutions and
countries with which the author had at least one-fourth of her or his publications and/or
h-index papers. In cases where the award recipient had very few or no records in Scopus,
we recorded all the institutions and countries with which the person was affiliated for more

10 Fondation nationale américaine pour la science: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctoratework/

Études scientifiques quantitatives

979

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

que 10 années. Dans l'ensemble, 52% of the award recipients had multiple affiliations or have changed
affiliations during their careers (Schlagberger, Bornmann, & Bauer, 2016).

We used professors for comparison because over 94% of the 2,273 award recipients are or
were affiliated with universities and research institutions, 96% have doctoral degrees, le
average age of the individuals at the time of receiving the award was 66 (well above the
average age of professors, which stands at around 55 in the United States), and researchers
receive these awards an average of 37 years after their PhDs (European University Institute,
2018). We used the proportion equation to determine the magnitude of the gap between
men and women while taking into consideration their respective population sizes within
the scientific community. We analyze data in 5-year intervals (2001–2005, 2006–2010,
2011–2015, and 2016–2020) because of the small number of awards received by women
per year.

3. RÉSULTATS
The results of this study show that women’s recognition by highly prestigious international
research awards has increased noticeably over the years. During 2001–2005, women were
recognized by 30% of the 111 awards available at the time, increasing to 39% (de 132 awards)
during 2006–2010 and up to 65% (ou 92 of all 141) awards available during 2016–2020
(Chiffre 1). Despite the improvement, it is remarkable that from 2016 à 2020 not a single
woman scientist or engineer was recognized for her research achievements by 49 (ou 35%) de
all available awards. Even when examining 20 années (2001–2020), women still did not get
recognized by 22 (ou 16%) of the 141 awards examined in this study (Table S1 in the supple-
mentary information), including the two awards named after women: Maryam Mirzakhani
Prize in Mathematics (given four times since 2001) and Queen Elizabeth Prize for
Engineering (received by 14 individuals since its inauguration in 2013).

Similar to women’s recognition by different awards, the ratio of individual awards received
by women increased, aussi, during the period 2001–2020, going up from 6% (ou 41 of all 693
awards) given during 2001–2005 to 19% (ou 187 of all 1,001 awards) given during 2016–
2020. Despite the steady increase, le 19% share by women of the world’s most prestigious

Chiffre 1. Percentage of awards recognizing distinguished female scientists and engineers. Le
figures in parentheses are the number of different awards available during that period. The chart
can be read as follows: During 2001–2005, there were 111 different highly prestigious international
research awards available; women were represented as recipients in 30% of these 111 awards.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

980

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

international research awards during 2016–2020 is still notably lower than the 28% share of
science and engineering professor positions currently held by women (Chiffre 2) and lower than
le 33% of research articles in which women are lead authors (Larivière et al., 2013).
Considering women’s numbers and proportions among science and engineering professors
during 2016–2020, the results show that women’s share of the highly prestigious research awards
will have to increase by 47% (to go up from 19% à 28% share) to achieve parity with men.

When examining the results by field, we noticed important differences (Chiffre 3). In biolog-
ical and life sciences, the data show steady improvement in the number and proportion of
awards received by women, increasing from 20 (ou 7% of all 268) awards given during 2001–
2005 à 81 (ou 21% of all 382) awards conferred during 2016–2020. Given that the proportion of
female professors in the field has increased by 42% from 2001–2005 to 2016–2020 (moving up
depuis 24% à 34%) compared to an increase by 200% in the proportion of awards received
during the same period, one could conclude that the gender gap in awards in the field is closing
at a remarkable rate. Women in biological and life sciences, cependant, still need to increase their
share of the awards by 67% (c'est, go up from 21% à 34% share) to achieve parity with men.

Unlike all other fields, where increases in the number of awards received by women were
in line with increases in the number of female professors, in computer science, women’s
share of awards fluctuated markedly in the past 20 years even though (un) the number of
female professors has increased from 140 during 2001–2005 to 600 during 2016–2020; (b)

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Chiffre 2. Percentage of awards received by women, the proportion of female professors, et en-
crease in the share of awards needed to achieve parity with men. The data for female professors
(orange columns) represent the share of positions held by women during the respective period,
using the gender distribution of professors in the United States as a proxy for the worldwide distri-
bution. These data, which are used in the biennial publication Women, Minorities, and Persons with
Disabilities in Science and Engineering (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304), were retrieved from
the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and the
US National Institutes of Health (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctoratework/). The figures for
each 5-year interval represent the midpoint or the annual average during that period (par exemple., the data
for the 2016–2020 period are the average of the years 2017 et 2019). The green line represents
the proportion of increase needed in the share of awards by women to achieve parity with men. Le
figures between parentheses are the number of awards received by women/the number of awards
received by men and women.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

981

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Chiffre 3. Percentage of awards received by women by field: change over time. Awards in field = total number of awards received by men and
femmes. Awards by women = total number of awards received by women. % awards rec’d = percentage of total awards received by women. %
women prof = ratio of professors who are women. # of women prof = number of women with the rank of professor. The data for the number of
female professors represent the share of positions held by women during the respective period, using the gender distribution of professors in the
United States as a proxy for the worldwide distribution. These data were retrieved from the Institutes of Health (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics
/srvydoctoratework/). The figures for each 5-year interval represent the midpoint or the annual average during that period (par exemple., the data for the
2016–2020 period are the average of the 2017 et 2019 data). The charts can be read as follows, using the bottom two as examples. Left chart:
Women received 41 (ou 6%) of all 693 awards given during 2001–2005, 74 (ou 9%) of all 804 awards given during 2006–2010, et ainsi de suite. Droite
chart: Although women made up 18% of the total population of professors, they received 6% of all awards given during 2001–2005.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

982

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

the proportion of female professors increased from 12% à 20% during the same period; et
(c) the number of available awards in the field remained relatively stable from 2001 à 2015 ou
increased considerably during 2016–2020. Women received a single computer science
award during 2001–2005, followed by eight during 2006–2010, then one award again during
2011–2015, when there was an average of 47 awards (±3) available in each of these 5-year
periods. These results suggest that the fluctuation in the number and proportion of awards
received by women in computer science is a result of variables other than the count and pro-
portion of female professors and the number of available awards in the field.

In engineering, women have received very few of the highly prestigious awards in the field.
Cependant, their share was relatively in line with their numbers among engineers and engineer-
ing professors. Par exemple, during 2006–2010, women received only two (ou 3% of all 64)
awards presented in this period, but this was at a time when women constituted only 5% of all
professors. During 2011–2016, women received 7% of all awards in engineering while
making up 7% of all professors. In short, the number of highly prestigious research awards
women are expected to receive in engineering is relatively driven by their numbers among
full professors in the field.

In mathematics, the number and proportion of awards received by women increased
steadily over the years; cependant, their share remained considerably below the number of
awards they are eligible for considering the number of female professors in the field. At the
rate of awards received during 2016–2020 and considering their numbers among professors,
women would need to increase their share of awards in mathematics by 89% (or go up from
9% à 17% share) to achieve parity with men. In the physical sciences, the number and pro-
portion of awards received by women grew consistently after 2001–2005 and by 2016–2020
there was no longer a gap between men and women; it remains to be seen whether women
will maintain their relative share of awards in the field.

In the social and behavioral sciences, women’s share of highly prestigious awards ranged
depuis 12% à 15% depuis 2001 à 2015 only to jump to 33% (ou 43 of all 132) awards given
during the 2016–2020 period; this sudden substantial increase was largely a result of five
awards that women received 19 times (out of a total of 37) during 2016–2020 in comparison
to seven times (out of a total of 75) during the previous 15 années: the Berggruen Prize for
Philosophy and Culture (first awarded in 2016), Dan David Prize (2002–), Holberg Prize
(2004–), John von Neumann Award (2001–), and the John W. Kluge Prize for Achievement
in the Study of Humanity (2003–). Apart from the Berggruen Prize, which started in 2016
and conferred its prize on women three out of five times through 2020, we could not find
any information on the websites of the other four awards or in the literature that could explain
the reasons for the shift in the number and percentage of awards going to women.

Geographically, depuis 2001 à 2020, women affiliated with institutions located in the
United States received nearly twice as many awards (n = 272) as their counterparts in other
high-income countries (n = 140) and considerably more than the rest of the world (n = 15)
(Chiffre 4). During these 20 années, women in the United States always received a higher pro-
portion of all awards received by scientists affiliated with institutions located in the country
compared to women in other high-income countries; cependant, women in the latter group sub-
stantially increased their share of all awards in their respective countries during 2016–2020,
bringing them closer to achieving parity with their women colleagues in the United States
(Heinze, Jappe, & Pithan, 2019). Although women in the rest of the world enjoyed a better
success rate during 2016–2020 compared to women in the United States and other high-
income countries (21% vs. 18% et 17%, respectivement), they received only nine of the 187
awards given to women worldwide during these 5 années. Dans l'ensemble, as mentioned earlier,

Études scientifiques quantitatives

983

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Chiffre 4. Count and proportion of awards received by women (by country/country groups).

women everywhere continue to face the challenge of achieving parity with men that is com-
parable with their numbers within the elite scientific community.

To determine whether women received their awards under similar conditions as men, nous
compared their research records from 1996 à 2020. Our results—summarized in Table 1—
showed great similarities between men and women in terms of the average number of journal
articles per author, the average number of authors per article, work in large research groups, le
proportion of articles in top 10% and top 25% journaux, citations per article, and proportion of
publications with international collaboration (c'est à dire., papers coauthored with individuals affiliated
with institutions in another country). The only notable difference between male and female
award recipients was in international mobility (proportion of authors changing their primary
affiliation from one institution in one country to another institution in another country). Le
results show that only 11% of the female award recipients had changed their primary affiliations

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

Tableau 1.

Summary of scientific output of award recipients, 1996–2020

Average number of articles per year per award recipient

Average number of coauthors per article*

Articles with more than 30 coauthors

Articles with more than 100 coauthors

Articles in top 25% journals per CiteScore (world av. = 50%)

Articles in top 10% journals per CiteScore (world av. = 27%)

Single-author articles

Citations per article (world av. = 21)

International collaboration (world av. = 19%)

International mobility

* Among articles with fewer than 100 coauthors.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

Men
5.2

7.0

3.2%

1.4%

86%

63%

112

45%

15%

Women
4.6

7.5

3.6%

1.7%

88%

64%

108

44%

11%

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Gap
13%

−7%

−11%

−18%

−2%

36%

984

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Tableau 2.

Average age of professors and award recipients at the time of receiving the award

Average age of professors

Average age of award recipients

2001–2005

2006–2010

2011–2015

2016–2020

2001–2020

Men
55.6

56.4

57.0

57.6

56.7

Women
53.8

Différence
−1.8

54.8

56.4

57.0

55.5

−1.6

−0.6

−1.2

Men
63.6

64.0

65.4

66.7

65.0

Women
65.5

62.0

60.0

63.0

62.3

Différence
+1.9

−2.0

−5.4

−3.7

−2.7

For this table, we used the average age of male and female professors in Canada as a proxy for the world (Statistics Canada, 2021).

from one country to another compared to 15% among men11. To determine whether the differ-
ence between 11% et 15% is statistically significant, we performed an independent samples
t test. Our results showed no significant difference in the average number of awards received by
le 29 internationally mobile female scientists (M = 1.6, SD = 2.61) compared to the 307 inter-
nationally mobile male scientists (M = 1.5, SD = 1.24); t = 2.048, p = 0.756. These results suggest
that international mobility has a negligible impact on the number of awards received by elite
scientists. We further verified this outcome by comparing the population of internationally
mobile award recipients with noninternationally mobile award recipients. Ici, aussi, our results
showed no significant difference in the average number of awards received by the 336 interna-
tionally mobile scientists (M = 1.50, SD = 1.40) versus the 1,937 noninternationally mobile
scientists (M = 1.5, SD = 1.21); t = 1.965, p = 0.767 (see also Netz, Hampel, & Aman, 2020).

To determine whether the gender gap in awards may be explained by the age gap between
male and female professors, we examined their average ages during 2001–2020. Because we do
not have access to the average age of male and female professors in the United States, we used
those of Canada as a proxy for the world (Statistics Canada, 2021). The results show that the
difference in the average age between male and female professors has decreased from 1.8 années
during 2001–2005 to only 0.6 years during 2016–2020. For the average age of award recipients
at the time of receiving the awards, the results show fluctuations from one 5-year period to
another. Dans l'ensemble, men received their highly prestigious awards at an average age of 65.0 com-
pared to 62.3 for women (see Table 2 for more details)12. These results suggest that female pro-
fessors are not only, on average, younger than their male counterparts, but they receive highly
prestigious awards at a younger age, aussi. The increase in the average age of female professors
(passer de 53.8 during 2001–2005 to 57.0 during 2016–2020) may have been a factor in the
increase in the number and proportion of awards they received as we progress in time during
2001–2020; cependant, this suggestion could not be verified from our data. Note here that the
average age of male professors also increased over time, yet men received fewer awards as
time progressed: The share of awards received by men declined from 89% during 2011–
2015 à 81% during 2016–2020 and the count of awards from 844 à 814 during the same
period (see Figures 2 et 3).

11 Approximately 45% of the internationally mobile award recipients left the United States for other countries
(or returned to their countries after residing in the United States for several years) et 55% of the award
recipients left their countries or returned to the United States after spending several years abroad.

12 The average ages of men and women when receiving the Nobel Prize is 71 for chemistry, 67 for economics,

68 for physics, et 68 for physiology or medicine during 2010–2019 (Bjørk, 2019).

Études scientifiques quantitatives

985

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As in other areas in academia (par exemple., subventions, research productivity, length of research careers,
salaries, progress through senior and leadership positions, and senior authorship positions), le
gender gap in highly prestigious awards is a result of numerous factors. While this study did not
specifically address the causes of the gender gap in awards, it should be emphasized that the
number of female professors was very low in the past, when they were competing for highly pres-
tigious awards, reflecting “demographic inertia” (Shaw & Stanton, 2012; Silver, Bank et al.,
2018). In the early 1990s, only 7,000 (ou 10%) of all professors in science and engineering in
the United States were women, increasing to 16,000 (ou 18%) during 2001–2005 and 29,400
(ou 28%) during 2016–2020 (Chiffre 3). Male professors, on the other hand, increased by a mere
1,300 over the past 20 années (depuis 75,300 during 2001–2005 to 76,600 during 2016–2020). Donc,
as time was passing, many more women were competing and receiving highly prestigious
awards, a trend that will continue in the future until the increase in professor positions reaches
equilibrium between men and women, where both are expected to compete for awards on equal
footing. It should be emphasized here that while the proportion of female professors increased
par 56% from the period 2001–2005 to 2016–2020 (going up from 18% à 28%, respectivement),
their share of highly prestigious awards more than tripled (going up from 6% à 19%). De la même manière,
while the number of awards to men and women increased by 44% in total (going up from 693
à 1,001), women’s share more than quadrupled—increasing from 41 during 2001–2005 to 187
during 2016–2020. Given the increasing number of female professors in all fields, their increas-
ing recognition by peers, and perhaps their increasing age, one could conclude that it is just a
matter of time for women to close the gap with men in highly prestigious awards.

Demographic inertia, cependant, can only partly explain the present gender gap in research
awards, as evidenced by the field of computer science, where despite the significant increase
of female professors in the field, their share of awards fluctuated considerably from one period
to another. Charlesworth and Banaji (2019) and Lincoln et al. (2012) highlight the role of
explicit and implicit biases in the assessment of otherwise similar careers, indicating that
women tend to get less recognition than men for similar performance and record. Holmes
et autres. (2020) pointed at women’s underrepresentation on selection committees as an additional
cause for receiving fewer awards than they duly deserve. The World Economic Forum (2020)
emphasizes the lack of effective efforts and initiatives as reasons for gender inequities overall
(and by extension awards). The data in this study raise questions that may support these
findings and claims. Par exemple, why as recently as 2016–2020, were over one-third (ou
49 of the 141) of the awards examined in this study never received by women, even though
the data suggest the presence of many qualified women (voir la figure 1 and Table 1)? Holmes
et autres. (2020) and Silver et al. (2018) emphasized problems in the process rather than qualifi-
cations, questioning the methods used in selecting awardees, selection committee structures,
and the supervision and training provided to selection committee members. The U.S. National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine years ago concluded that the deficit of
women in science and technology is not because too few women enter the field or because
women are less committed to their careers, but rather because assumptions and stereotypes
about gender operate in personal interactions, evaluative processes and departmental cultures
that systematically impede women’s career advancement in academic medicine, science, et
engineering (Institute of Medicine, 2007). A telling example comes from the Nobel Prizes.
Despite the many calls for gender equality within the scientific community over the past
decades, jusqu'à 2020 less than 12% of all Nobel Prizes in chemistry, économie, physiology/
medicine, and physics have gone to women—this holds whether we examine the 2016–2020
period or the previous 115 années (see the Nobel Prize website and Lunnemann et al., 2019).

Études scientifiques quantitatives

986

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Lincoln et al. (2012), Cadwalader et al. (2014), and Holmes et al. (2020) have identified
several methods to alleviate the gender gap and reduce gender bias in research awards. Ils
mentioned that while implicit bias is difficult to eliminate, members of the scientific community
should become aware of these biases to reduce their impact on evaluation. They additionally
recommended providing implicit bias training, that selection committees focus on the criteria for
the awards (rather than nonpertinent, often personal, information), that award committees be
more diverse, and that awarding institutions regularly evaluate and revise their nomination
process and procedures as well as the selection criteria and mechanisms. Where possible,
names and gender identity information should be removed from or avoided in application
and nomination packets to ensure a fair evaluation. These changes would give women a better
chance of having their work evaluated based on its merits rather than the gender of the author.

Improving our understanding and addressing the causes of gender disparities in awards is
crucial to bring often-biased behaviors and decisions in line with values of equality and fairness
(Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). Ensuring the full participation and recognition of the highest-
quality award candidates (men and women in high-, middle-, and low-income countries) guar-
antees improvement in research and innovation that ultimately improves societies (Andersen,
Schneider et al., 2019; Chan & Torgler, 2020; Cheryan, Ziegler et al., 2017; Holman et al.,
2018; Huang et al., 2020; Nielsen, 2017).

REMERCIEMENTS

The author would like to thank Debora Shaw for her valuable comments and suggestions.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The author has no competing interests.

INFORMATIONS SUR LE FINANCEMENT

No funding was received for this study.

DATA AVAILABILITY

https://scholarworks.aub.edu.lb/handle/10938/22921.

RÉFÉRENCES

Aguinis, H., Ji, Oui. H., & Joo, H. (2018). Gender productivity gap
among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1283–1306. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1037/apl0000331

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.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45374, PubMed: 31305239

Astegiano, J., Sebastián-González, E., & Castanho, C. D. T. (2019).
Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: A meta-
analytical review. Royal Society Open Science, 6(6). https://est ce que je
.org/10.1098/rsos.181566, PubMed: 31312468

Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Oui. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable?
Management Science, 60(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1287
/mnsc.2013.1755

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

Bjørk, R.. (2019). The age at which Noble Prize research is conducted.
Scientometrics, 119(2), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-019-03065-4

Cadwalader, E. L., Herbers, J.. M., & Popejoy, UN. B. (2014).
Disproportionate awards for women in disciplinary societies.
Advances in Gender Research, 19, 243–263. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1108/S1529-212620140000019011

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M.. (2011). Understanding current causes
of women’s underrepresentation in science. Actes du
Académie nationale des sciences, 108(8), 3157–3162. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108, PubMed: 21300892

Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M.. (2014). Women
in academic science: A changing landscape. Sciences psychologiques
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. Scientometrics, 125(3),
2421–2447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w

Études scientifiques quantitatives

987

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Chan, H. F., Gleeson, L., & Torgler, B. (2014). Awards before and
after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one’s
own funeral? Research Evaluation, 23(3), 210–220. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu011

Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Banaji, M.. R.. (2019). Gender in science,
Problèmes, causes,
technologie, engineering, and mathematics:
Journal des neurosciences, 39(37), 7228–7243.
solutions.
https://doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.0475-18.2019, PubMed:
31371423

Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. UN., Montoya, UN. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why
are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?
Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037
/bul0000052, PubMed: 27732018

De Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, UN., & Dillow, S. UN. (2021).
Digest of Education Statistics 2019 (NCES 2021-009). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
US Department of Education. Washington, CC. https://nces.ed
.gov/programs/digest/

Dennison, R.. F. (2000). Quality assessment of collection develop-
ment through tiered checklists: Can you prove you are a good
collection developer? Collection Building, 19(1), 24–27. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01604950010310866

Dillman, D. UN., Smyth, J.. D., & Christian, L. M.. (2014). Internet,
phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design
method. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation. (2003). She figures 2003. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Available at: https://op.europa.eu
/en/publication-detail/-/publication/31442d26-88c7-42db-a985
-b8d843517089

European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation. (2006). She figures 2006. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Available at: https://op.europa.eu
/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ada458f1-764a-4787-98b7
-07b26b2e78aa

European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation. (2019). She figures 2018. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/936

European University Institute. (2018). Careers by country. https://www
.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory
/AcademicCareersbyCountry

Freund, K. M., Raj, UN., Kaplan, S. E., Terrin, N., Breeze, J.. L., …
Carr, P.. L. (2016). Inequities in academic compensation by gen-
der: A follow-up to the national faculty survey cohort study.
Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1068–1073. https://doi.org/10.1097
/ACM.0000000000001250, PubMed: 27276007

Gallus, J., & Frey, B. S. (2017). Awards as strategic signals. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 76–85. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/1056492616658127

Heinze, T., Jappe, UN., & Pithan, D. (2019). From North American
hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights
from the Nobel population. PLOS ONE, 14(4). https://est ce que je.org/10
.1371/journal.pone.0213916, PubMed: 30943240

Higher Education Statistics. (2021). Staff Data. Selected Higher
Education Statistics – 2001 et 2020 Staff data. https://www
.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/staff-data

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2021). Who’s working in HE?:
Personal characteristics. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and
-analysis/staff/working-in-he/characteristics

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

Holmes, M.. UN., Myles, L., & Schneider, B. (2020). Diversity and
equality in honours and awards programs – steps towards a fair
representation of membership. Advances in Geosciences, 53,
41–51. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-53-41-2020

Huang, J., Gates, UN. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, UN. L. (2020).
Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers
across countries and disciplines. Actes de la Nationale
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(9),
4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117,
PubMed: 32071248

Institute of Medicine. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling
the potential of women in academic science and engineering.
Washington, CC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org
/10.17226/11741

Jiang, F., & Liu, N. (2018). The hierarchical status of international
academic awards in social sciences. Scientometrics, 117(3),
2091–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2928-y

Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R..
(2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479),
211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a, PubMed: 24350369
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, UN., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015).
Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across ac-
ademic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. https://doi.org
/10.1126/science.1261375, PubMed: 25593183

Lincoln, UN. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J.. B., & Leboy, P.. S. (2012). Le
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

Lunnemann, P., Jensen, M.. H., & Jauffred, L. (2019). Gender bias in
Nobel Prizes. Palgrave Communications, 5(1). https://est ce que je.org/10
.1057/s41599-019-0256-3

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

Ma, Y., & Uzzi, B. (2018). Scientific prize network predicts who
pushes the boundaries of science. Actes de la Nationale
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(50),
12608–12615. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800485115,
PubMed: 30530666

Merton, R.. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science,
159(3810), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56,
PubMed: 5634379

Netz, N., Hampel, S., & Aman, V. (2020). What effects does inter-
national mobility have on scientists’ careers? A systematic re-
voir. Research Evaluation, 29(3), 327–351. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1093/reseval/rvaa007

Ngila, D., Boshoff, N., Henry, F., Diab, R., Malcom, S., & Thomson, J..
(2017). Women’s representation in national science academies.
South African Journal of Science, 113(7–8). https://est ce que je.org/10
.17159/sajs.2017/20170050

Nielsen, M.. W. (2017). Scandinavian approaches to gender equality
in academia: A comparative study. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 61(3), 295–318. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/00313831.2016.1147066

Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes
impair women’s careers in science. Actes de la Nationale
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12),
4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111,
PubMed: 24616490

Sá, C., Cowley, S., Martinez, M., Kachynska, N., & Sabzalieva, E.
(2020). Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition
among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

988

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
3
9
7
6
1
9
7
0
7
5
1
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
1
4
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

PLOS ONE, 15(10 Octobre). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0240903, PubMed: 33119671

Schlagberger, E. M., Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J.. (2016). At what in-
stitutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? Un
analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from
1994 à 2014. Scientometrics, 109(2), 723–767. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11192-016-2059-2, PubMed: 27795592

Seeman, J.. JE., & Restrepo, G. (2020). The mutation of the “Nobel
Prize in Chemistry” into the “Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Life
Sciences”: Several decades of transparent and opaque evidence
of change within the Nobel Prize program. Angewandte Chemie
– International Edition, 59(8), 2942–2961. https://doi.org/10.1002
/anie.201906266, PubMed: 31800972

Shaw, UN. K., & Stanton, D. E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline:
Separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences
in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
les sciences, 279(1743), 3736–3741. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb
.2012.0822, PubMed: 22719028

Silver, J.. K., Bank, UN. M., Slocum, C. S., Blauwet, C. UN., Bhatnagar, S.,
… Zafonte, R.. D. (2018). Women physicians underrepresented

in American Academy of Neurology recognition awards.
Neurologie, 91(7), e603–e614. https://doi.org/10.1212/ WNL
.0000000000006004, PubMed: 30030329

Statistics Canada. (2021). Tableau 37-10-0076-01: Number of full-time
teaching staff at Canadian universities, by rank, sex. https://doi.org
/10.25318/3710007601-eng; Tableau 37-10-0077-01 Number and
median age of full-time teaching staff at Canadian universities, par
highest earned degree, staff functions, rank, sex. https://est ce que je.org/10
.25318/3710007701-eng

Wang, M.. T., & Degol, J.. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowl-
bord, implications for practice, politique, and future directions.
Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x, PubMed: 28458499

World Economic Forum. (2020). Global Gender Gap Report 2020.
https://www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100
-years-pay-equality

Zheng, J., & Liu, N. (2015). Mapping of important international ac-
ademic awards. Scientometrics, 104(3), 763–791. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11192-015-1613-7

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d