ARTÍCULO DE INVESTIGACIÓN
Who are the acknowledgees? An analysis of
gender and academic status
Adèle Paul-Hus1,2
, Philippe Mongeon3
, Maxime Sainte-Marie3
, and Vincent Larivière1,4
1École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, PO Box 6128, Downtown Station,
Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada
2Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST), CP 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville,
H3C 3P8 Montréal, Qc., Canada
3Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Dinamarca
4Université du Québec à Montréal, Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST),
Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (OST), CP 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville,
H3C 3P8 Montréal, Qc., Canada
Palabras clave: academic status, acknowledgement, authorship, género, scientific credit
ABSTRACTO
Acknowledgements found in scholarly papers allow for credit attribution of nonauthor
contributors. Tal como, they are associated with a different kind of recognition than authorship.
While several studies have shown that social factors affect authorship and citation practices,
few analyses have been performed on acknowledgements. Based on 878,250 acknowledgees
mentioned in 291,167 papers published between 2015 y 2017, this study analyzes the
gender and academic status of individuals named in the acknowledgements of scientific
documentos. Our results show that gender disparities generally found in authorship can be
extended to acknowledgements, and that women are even more underrepresented in
acknowledgements section than in authors’ lists. Our findings also show that women
acknowledge proportionally more women than men do. Regarding academic status, nuestro
results show that acknowledgees who have already published tend to have a higher position
in the academic hierarchy compared with all Web of Science ( WoS) autores. Tomados juntos,
these findings suggest that acknowledgement practices might be associated with academic
status and gender.
INTRODUCCIÓN
1.
Acknowledgements found in scientific papers are a public testimony of authors’ gratitude and
recognition that can reveal contributions of varied nature made by individuals, institutions,
y organizaciones. Tal como, acknowledgements have been positioned along side authorship
and citations as a form of scientific recognition in the “reward triangle” (Cronin, 1995).
They also allow for the division of credit among authors and other contributors named in
the acknowledgements section. En este sentido, acknowledgements can illuminate “sub-authorship
collaboration” (patel, 1973, p.81). In the reward system of science (Merton, 1973)—where
authorship constitutes the main means to accumulate “symbolic capital” (Bourdieu, 1975)—
a mention in the acknowledgements is not associated with the same kind of recognition as
authorship. Además, given the hierarchical structure of the scientific community, it can be
difficult to discern the reason justifying one’s presence (or absence) in the authors’ list,
un acceso abierto
diario
Citación: Casa de Pablo, A., Mongeon, PAG.,
Sainte-Marie, METRO., & Larivière, V. (2020).
Who are the acknowledgees? Un
analysis of gender and academic
estado. Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas,
1(2), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1162/
qss_a_00036
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00036
Recibió: 15 Octubre 2019
Aceptado: 03 Marzo 2020
Autor correspondiente:
Adèle Paul-Hus
adele.paul-hus@umontreal.ca
Editor de manejo:
Ludo Waltmann
Derechos de autor: © 2020 Adèle Paul-Hus,
Philippe Mongeon, Maxime Sainte-
Marie, and Vincent Larivière. Publicado
bajo una atribución Creative Commons
4.0 Internacional (CC POR 4.0) licencia.
La prensa del MIT
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
because credit attribution can be difficult to disentangle from one’s status within the hierarchy
(Heffner, 1979). Credit attribution does not exclusively rely on the nature of contributions
hecho, and numerous other factors come into play, such as disciplinary context, structure of
the project (Jabbehdari & Walsh, 2017), and one’s position in the academic hierarchy (Col &
Col, 1973; Merton, 1973; Zuckerman, 1977). Among those factors, género, seniority, y
academic status have been shown to have an effect on inclusion in authorship lists
(Haeussler & Sauermann, 2013; Larivière, Rocas, et al. 2016; Lissoni, Montobbio, &
Zirulia, 2013). A recent survey of 6,673 researchers provided evidence that discipline, aca-
demic rank, and gender were all affecting, to various degrees, authorship disagreements in
research teams (Herrero, Williams-Jones, et al., 2019).
1.1. Nonauthor Collaborators
Authorship criteria have been the subject of numerous discussions in the last decades (p.ej.,
Marušic´, Bošnjak, & Jeroncˇic´, 2011; Sismondo, 2009; Apostar, 2009; Wislar, Flanagin, et al.,
2011). Sin embargo, collaborators who are not authors have received less attention. Shapin’s sem-
inal work (1989) has shown that the essential role played by technicians in the scientific de-
velopment of the 17th century has been completely obliterated from the history of science, como
their contributions were not recorded anywhere—reflecting their invisible status at the time.
The professionalization of science has transformed the organization of scientific work, todavía
technicians’ contributions remain invisible in many ways.
Heffner (1979) was one of the first to investigate the credit allocation in science using ac-
knowledgements as recognition for contributions. Based on a questionnaire completed by 207
individuals named in acknowledgements of scientific papers (acknowledgees) from social and
natural sciences, Heffner found that publication credit is not always attributed on the basis of
universalistic principles, y eso 12% of respondents reported having been excluded from the
authors’ list when they felt their contribution warranted authorship. Female PhDs were twice
as likely as any other group in his sample (male and non-PhDs) to express exclusion from the
authorship list when they believed they should have been named as an author.
Laband and Tollison (2000), Laudel (2002), Ponomariov and Boardman (2016), y
Bozeman and Youtie (2016) analyzed collaboration beyond lists of authors. Laband and
Tollison (2000) compared the number of coauthors (formal collaboration) and the number
of individuals mentioned in the acknowledgements (informal collaboration) in economics
y biología. Although formal coauthorship was more frequent in biology, informal collabora-
tion appeared as more prominent in economics, demonstrating that disciplinary practices can
affect collaboration in its forms and rewards. Based on interviews and publication analysis of
101 investigadores, Laudel (2002) found that one third of all collaborators were nonauthors, y
were only mentioned in the acknowledgements. Además, about half of the contributions
were not publicly credited, and therefore remained invisible in formal communication chan-
nels. Ponomariov and Boardman (2016) surveyed 1,581 academic researchers and asked
about their relationship with their closest collaborators. They showed that there are numerous
dimensions to coauthorship and that collaboration often does not lead to coauthored papers.
The authors conclude that the “fluid content and boundaries of collaborations” (pag. 1959) call
for data that go beyond traditional coauthorship lists. Bozeman and Youtie (2016) interviewed
and analyzed online posts of US researchers on factors relating to the perceived unwarranted
exclusion and inclusion from authors’ lists. Their analysis shows that a few interacting variables
can explain the perceived exclusion from authorship: the geographic separation of collabora-
tores (especially, the relocation of less-experienced individuals), differential in power and ex-
experiencia, disagreements about the value of technical contributions, and gender dynamics.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
583
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
More recently, Jabbehdari and Walsh (2017), and Paul-Hus, Mongeon, et al. (2017) inves-
tigated the presence of nonauthor collaborators (es decir., those who contributed to a project but do
not appear as authors) across research fields. Based on a survey of 1,643 autores, Jabbehdari
and Walsh (2017) found that nonauthor collaborators are not rare and that their presence var-
ies by discipline. The highest rates of nonauthor collaborators occurred in engineering and in
agricultural sciences, while the lowest occurred in computer science and mathematics, and in
physics and space science. Analyzing 362,767 scientific papers and their acknowledgements,
Paul-Hus et al. (2017a) found that the mean numbers of acknowledgees (nonauthor collabo-
rators) per paper were the highest in social sciences, biology, and earth and space, y el
lowest in mathematics and chemistry. These findings show that traditional differences ob-
served between disciplines in terms of team size are greatly reduced when acknowledgees
are taken into account.
1.2. The Gender Gap in Acknowledgements
Few studies have looked at the gender of individuals named in the acknowledgements of sci-
entific publications. Hoder-Salmon (1978), Lewis-Beck (1980), and Coates (1999) have dis-
cussed the gender issue of scientific credit distribution looking at the contributions of
spouses through the analysis of scholarly books’ acknowledgements.
moore (1984) investigated the effect of authors’ gender on the content of their acknowledge-
mentos, and more specifically on the gender of those acknowledged. In a study based on 300
male-authored and 70 female-authored psychology books, moore (1984) found that while
men acknowledged mainly other men, women acknowledged the contributions of both genders.
In another analysis, Residencia en 684 psychology articles, moore (1984) found a lower proportion of
female acknowledgees, especially among male authors. Sugimoto and Cronin (2012) obtained
the same results while analyzing the scholarly production of six important information scientists.
The authors included in their sample were more likely to acknowledge individuals of the same
sexo, which led Sugimoto and Cronin to conclude that “scholars are more likely to seek (y
acknowledge) colaboración, consultation, and guidance from same-sex colleagues” (pag. 463).
Looking at the gender of authors and acknowledgees in women’s studies, Cronin,
Davenport and Martinson (1997) found, as expected given the field, that the vast majority
of authors are women (93% de 1,504 autores). When looking at the gender of acknowledgees,
they found that 66% of the individuals mentioned in the acknowledgments are women and
20% hombres, the remainder being either unidentified or unknown. The results also show a higher
mean number of acknowledgees per paper in women’s studies than in philosophy, historia,
psicología, and sociology. More recently, Dung, López, et al. (2019) highlighted women’s
hidden contributions to the field of theoretical population genetics by analyzing programmers
acknowledged within articles published between 1970 y 1990 in the journal Theoretical
Population Biology. The results (Dung et al., 2019) showed that women are significantly more
present within the acknowledged programmers (43.2% of women) as compared to authors
(7.4% of women).
1.3. Objectives
In focusing on acknowledgees as nonauthor collaborators, the objective of this paper is to
better understand how gender and academic status may associate with credit attribution prac-
tices in the context of acknowledgements. More specifically, the first goal of this paper is to
measure the percentage of acknowledgees who are women, and to assess whether this per-
centage varies across disciplines and as a function of the gender of the leading authors. El
second goal of this paper is to characterize the academic status of acknowledgees who are
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
584
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
also authors of other scientific publications (academic age, number of publications, citas,
and leading role).
2. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS
2.1. Datos
This study is based on all acknowledgements extracted from articles and reviews published
entre 2015 y 2017, and indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) y
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science ( WoS).1
Access to the WoS data in a relational database format was provided by the Observatoire
des Sciences et des Technologies (http://www.ost.uqam.ca). The data set used in the present
analysis was extracted from the full text of the acknowledgements sections of papers, and in-
cludes 1,045,131 acknowledgements from as many papers. The data set covers all disciplines
included in the SCI-E and SSCI. The disciplines of papers were assigned using the NSF field
classification of journals (Fundación Nacional de Ciencia, 2006); the NSF classification assigns
only one discipline specialty to each journal, thus preventing multiple counting of multidisci-
plinary papers.
2.2. Análisis
The extraction of individual names from acknowledgement texts was done using the Stanford
Named Entity Recognizer (NER) (Finkel, Grenager, & Manning, 2005) module of the Natural
Language ToolKit (NLTK) (Bird, Klein, & Loper, 2009). To obtain the number of acknowl-
edgees per paper, the algorithm was applied to each string of acknowledgement text retrieved
from WoS and all named entities tagged as “person” were selected.2
Several data cleaning procedures were undertaken in order to eliminate nonhuman entities
from the list of extracted names. Primero, incomplete names were removed from the list (occur-
rences containing only a first or last name, or only initials), retaining only occurrences com-
posed of a complete name (es decir., at least one initial and one last name). We then manually
removed all remaining names that did not refer to individual persons, such as grant, founda-
ción, organización, and institution names. Examples of such names removed by manual clean-
ing include Frederick Banting (grant), Marie Curie (grant and foundation), Boehringer
Ingelheim (organización), and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (institución).
Because acknowledgements often contain the name(s) of the author(s) signing the paper
from which the acknowledgements are retrieved, a final step of cleaning was necessary.
When the name(s) extracted from the acknowledgements of a paper X matched the name of
one of the authors appearing in the byline of that paper (using the first initial and the last
name), this name was removed from the acknowledgees list for that specific paper, como
in the example below:
Paper X
Autores: j. zhang, X. Feng and Y. Xu
Acknowledgements text: “Jinsong Zhang, Xiao Feng, and Yong Xu contributed equally to
this work […]."
1 Acknowledgements data are collected and indexed in the WoS only if they include funding information
(Casa de Pablo, Rocas & costas, 2016).
2 This extraction procedure was used in a previous round of analysis on a smaller data set (Casa de Pablo,
Mongeon, et al., 2017a).
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
585
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 1. Number of papers and acknowledgements mentioning person’s names, by discipline
Number of mentions of person’s names (acknowledgements)
Unknown
Male
Female
Discipline
Biología
Número
of papers
124,234
norte
116,336
%
20.6%
norte
245,110
%
43.5%
norte
202,656
%
35.9%
norte
606,885
Authorships
% con
identificado
género
73.2%
Biomedical Research
177,916
139,862
23.0%
248,762
41.0%
218,193
36.0% 1,304,857
78.2%
Chemistry
101,983
38,730
17.2%
108,015
48.0%
78,319
34.8%
539,223
74.7%
Clinical Medicine
179,725
153,204
30.9%
212,903
42.9%
130,490
26.3% 1,338,073
77.1%
Earth and Space
124,087
78,717
16.2%
246,523
50.6%
161,696
33.2%
699,914
59.9%
Engineering and
Tecnología
131,867
33,706
11.7%
141,103
49.1%
112,576
39.2%
627,025
65.2%
Salud
16,191
25,281
47.1%
20,556
38.3%
7,854
14.6%
80,641
85.1%
Matemáticas
25,272
4,883
Physics
96,156
17,300
8.7%
6.3%
31,010
55.0%
20,521
36.4%
64,948
72.2%
113,884
41.7%
142,056
52.0%
601,672
39.5%
Professional Fields
15,828
20,151
27.0%
46,378
62.1%
8,101
10.9%
46,415
83.4%
Psicología
22,364
34,535
42.6%
33,583
41.4%
12,905
15.9%
91,815
88.6%
Social Sciences
29,508
38,722
24.8%
101,477
65.1%
15,793
10.1%
77,497
84.4%
Total
1,045,131
701,427
20.9%
1,549,304
46.1%
1,111,160
33.1% 6,078,965
70.2%
2.3. Determining the Gender of Authors and Acknowledgees
For the purpose of our analysis, we consider first and corresponding authors as lead authors of
a paper, because first authors are generally associated with the highest proportion of tasks per-
formed in a paper (Larivière et al., 2016), and the corresponding author is assigned to the au-
thor responsible for correspondence and is often associated with the initial conception and
supervision of the research project (Mattsson, Sundberg, & Laget, 2011). If both the first and
corresponding authors are women, the paper is considered female-led; if both are men, el
paper is considered male-led; and if first and corresponding author are of different genders, el
paper is considered mixed.
The gender assignation of personal names (authors and acknowledgees) was done using
the Wiki-Gendersort algorithm (Bérubé, Sainte-Marie, et al., 2020). By using Wikipedia pages
to get gender information, this algorithm increases the reliability of gender assignation by ex-
amining the first names of the names covered by Wikipedia and counting the number of mas-
culine and feminine pronouns in the introduction section of the first 20 paginas. Gender is
assigned to a first name when the same gender was attributed to 75% of Wikipedia pages.
No gender is assigned when this threshold is not met. As shown in Table 1, using the
Wiki-Gendersort algorithm we were able to identify the gender of 67% of all personal names
mentioned in the acknowledgements of our data set, y de 70% of the authors. The remain-
der are classified as unknown gender, which includes unisex names. Our analysis of the gen-
der variable uses occurrences of individual names for which a gender could be assigned
(Female or Male).
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
586
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 2. Number of distinct acknowledgees and distinct acknowledgees who are also authors in
WoS, by discipline
Discipline
Biología
Biomedical Research
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Earth and Space
Engineering and Technology
Salud
Matemáticas
Physics
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
All disciplines
Number of distinct
acknowledgees
349,623
Number of distinct acknowledgees
also authors in WoS
norte
77,671
%
22.2%
380,767
135,240
279,569
263,375
166,995
36,689
25,955
138,884
47,127
53,684
93,554
105,490
38,641
61,073
79,207
44,395
8,996
10,471
46,304
12,261
11,954
24,469
1,585,389
520,932
27.7%
28.6%
21.8%
30.1%
26.6%
24.5%
40.3%
33.3%
26.0%
22.3%
26.2%
32.9%
2.4. Determining the Academic Status of Acknowledgees
Determining whether an acknowledgee is the author of at least one WoS-index article or review
is not an easy task, given that we only have acknowledgees’ names, and no institutional or
disciplinary affiliation (except that of the acknowledging paper). Primero, all authors names from
WoS database were disambiguated using the Caron and van Eck algorithm (2014). Entonces, para
each acknowledgee name, we found all unique disambiguated authors with the same name.
We considered an author–acknowledgee match to be valid when there was only one author–
acknowledgee pair found in the same discipline or with the same institutional affiliation as the
acknowledging paper. We thus focus on precision over recall, as individuals with very common
names are almost systematically excluded. As shown in Table 2, following this procedure,
520,932 distinct acknowledgees with at least one WoS publication (article or review) were found.
For each acknowledgee identified as an author, we use the following indicators as proxies
for their academic status:
(cid:129) academic age (2017 minus the publication year of the first paper),3
(cid:129) number of publications (all publications published until 2017),
(cid:129) total field-normalized citations (based on the aforementioned NSF classification, the total
was calculated as the sum of field-normalized citation scores), y
(cid:129) share of the acknowledgees’ publications for which he or she has a leading role (first or
Autor correspondiente).
3 Data for the academic age is limited to papers published after 1980, because disambiguated authors’ data
are not valid before this year. The maximum academic age of an author is thus 36 years old.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
587
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Cifra 1. Percentage of female authors, acknowledgees, and acknowledgees who are also authors
by discipline.
These indicators are used to measure acknowledgees’ position within the academic hierar-
chy. The results for these indicators are presented as a distribution of values. In order to com-
pare the results for acknowledgees who are also authors, we use the distributions of all authors
who had published at least one article in WoS between 2015 y 2017, each author being
assigned to the discipline in which he or she has the highest number of publications
throughout his or her career. In the event of a tie, one of the tied disciplines was chosen
randomly.
3. RESULTADOS
3.1. Gender
Cifra 1 compares the percentage of women among all authors, acknowledgees, and the sub-
set of acknowledgees who are also authors, by discipline. It shows that the well-known gender
gap found in authorship (Larivière, En, et al., 2013; Oeste, Jacquet, et al., 2013) is also present
in acknowledgements. Women represent less than half of both authors and acknowledgees in
all disciplines, with the only exception of Health, where women account for the majority of
autores, acknowledgees, and acknowledgees who are also authors. Despite some disciplinary
variations, proportions of female acknowledgees and female authors are quite similar (differ-
ences ranging from 4.5% between all acknowledgees and authors in Clinical Medicine to
−3.1% between all acknowledgees and authors in Social Sciences and Mathematics). All dis-
ciplines taken together, women represent 28.4% of all authors, 29.7% of all acknowledgees,
y 28.3% of the subset of acknowledgees who are also authors.
Mesa 3 presents the percentage of female acknowledgees as a function of leading author
género. For each discipline, the proportion of female acknowledgees is higher in female-led
documentos (women as first or corresponding authors) than in the mixed-led papers or male-led
documentos. The difference in the proportion of female acknowledgees between female-led papers
and male-led papers ranges from 23.4% in Health to 11.0% in Biology, with a difference of
18.0% when all disciplines are taken together.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
588
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 3. Percentage of acknowledgees who are female as a function of the gender of the leading
autores, by discipline
Female-led
documentos
62.9%
Mixed-led
documentos
45.1%
Male-led
documentos
39.5%
Difference between
female-led and
male-led papers
23.4%
Discipline
Salud
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
Matemáticas
48.1%
58.0%
42.4%
28.7%
Engineering and Technology
31.9%
Clinical Medicine
Chemistry
Biomedical Research
Physics
Earth and Space
Biología
All disciplines
3.2. Academic Status
49.3%
36.3%
42.4%
23.7%
31.7%
39.0%
42.3%
23.6%
46.9%
20.8%
17.4%
19.6%
34.2%
23.2%
30.9%
15.8%
23.7%
27.5%
27.1%
24.8%
36.4%
22.5%
10.4%
15.2%
33.0%
21.5%
30.1%
11.6%
20.5%
28.0%
24.3%
23.3%
21.7%
19.8%
18.3%
16.8%
16.3%
14.8%
12.2%
12.1%
11.2%
11.0%
18.0%
Cifra 2 compares the distributions of WoS authors to the subset of acknowledgees who are
also authors, as a function of each of the four indicators.4 It shows that, for all indicators, el
distributions of the acknowledgees is less concentrated than that of all WoS authors.
Además, the acknowledgees’ distributions spread on longer tails, with a smaller share of
the distributions toward the lowest values for the four indicators.
In terms of number of publications, 80% of all disambiguated WoS authors have fewer than
seven publications, while only 30% of acknowledgees have fewer than seven publications
(80% of the acknowledgees have fewer than 80 publicaciones). When considering the total
field-normalized citations, a similar pattern is observed: 80% of WoS authors have fewer than
seven field-normalized citations, while only 27% of acknowledgees have less than seven field-
normalized citations (80% of acknowledgees have less than 145 field-normalized citations).
As for academic age, 80% of WoS authors have an academic age of six years or less, mientras
22% of acknowledgees have an academic age of 6 years or less (80% of acknowledgees
have an academic age of less than 24 años). Both distributions of leading authorships show
similar patterns, with important peaks at 0% (no leading authorship), 50% (leading position in
half of the authored publications), y 100% (leading position in all authored publications),
which is due to the high proportion of researchers having one or two papers. Sin embargo, el
distribution of acknowledgees is once again less concentrated than the WoS distribution, con
20% of the acknowledgees having less than 1% of leading authorships, mientras 54% of WoS
4 Descriptive statistics for the four indicators, detailed by disciplines, are available in the Appendix.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
589
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Cifra 2. Distribution of researchers (all WoS authors, and acknowledgees who are also authors) by number of publications, total field-
normalized citations, academic age, and percentage of leading authorships. Nota: WoS = All authors who published at least one article
or review in WoS between 2015 y 2017; Acknowledgees = Acknowledgees who published at least one article or review in WoS.
authors have less than 1% of leading authorships. Taken altogether, these results show that
acknowledgees who are also authors tend to have a higher position in the academic hierarchy
when compared to all WoS authors.
4. DISCUSIÓN
Our analyses of the academic status of acknowledgees, measured using numbers of publica-
ciones, total field-normalized citations, academic age, and share of leading authorships, espectáculo
that the subset of acknowledgees who are also authors tend to have a higher position in the
academic hierarchy compared to all of WoS authors. These findings suggest that academic
status may be associated with credit attribution practices, because acknowledgees appear to
be rather senior researchers according to our four indicators, at least when considering the
subset of acknowledgees who have already published (as defined by having at least one
WoS-indexed publication).
Our findings demonstrate that acknowledgements are not limited to research assistants and
less-experienced researchers whose contributions to research (often technical) cannot justify
authorship, but also extend to researchers of higher academic status, according to our four
indicators. Given the higher position in the academic hierarchy of the subset of acknowl-
edgees who have already published, we may consider acknowledgements not only as a form
of subauthorship, as has often been conceived (costas & van Leeuwen, 2012; Díaz-Faes &
Bordones, 2014; patel, 1973), but also as genuine form of credit for informal collaboration with
experienced colleagues. Our analysis does not allow us to associate academic status with the
nature of the acknowledged contribution. Sin embargo, it has been shown that senior researchers,
when authors of a paper, are more frequently associated with conceptual tasks and resources
contributions, while younger researchers are more likely to contribute to experimentation
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
590
Who are the acknowledgees?
(Larivière et al., 2016). This division of labor might be mirrored in the acknowledgements. Nuestro
findings could thus be explained by the fact that manuscript revision and resource allocation
(contributions frequently mentioned in the acknowledgements, Casa de Pablo, Díaz-Faes, et al.,
2017b) are reserved for researchers with higher seniority. En este sentido, acknowledgements
to researchers of higher academic status might reveal the “invisible college” of close-but-distant
collaborators who contribute in informal ways to a research project (Precio & Beaver, 1966).
Además, our results may be another manifestation of the Matthew Effect (Merton, 1968),
as researchers of higher academic status who already have recognition and visibility in the sci-
entific community tend to be overrepresented among the acknowledgees. When two re-
searchers, one junior and one senior, contribute to a research project without meeting
authorship criteria, we might be more inclined to acknowledge the contribution of a senior
researcher, precisely because of their seniority.
Regarding the gender of individuals named in the acknowledgements of scientific papers,
our analyses have shown that gender disparities generally found in authorship extend to ac-
knowledgements. Globally, women are underrepresented in both authorships and acknowl-
edgements of scientific papers. Además, as found by Moore (1984) and by Sugimoto and
Cronin (2012), our findings clearly confirm that women acknowledge proportionally more
women than men do. Our results are in line with the gender homophily pattern in team com-
position and social networks, which refers to the tendency to associate more frequently with
same-sex individuals (Ibarra, 1992; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cocinar, 2001). Women thus ap-
pear to be less homophilic than men in their acknowledgement practices. This finding is con-
sistent with previous analyses of gender homophily in scientific collaborations (Araújo et al.,
2017; Bozeman & Corley, 2004), showing that men are more likely to collaborate with other
men while women are more “egalitarian.”
Sin embargo, our results also show important differences between disciplines. These differ-
ences in the percentages of women among acknowledgees could also be due to the gender
composition in each discipline and the broad categorization of disciplines used in our anal-
yses. De hecho, the disciplines in which we observed the highest levels of gender homophily,
Health and Professional Fields, both contain research areas generally considered to be highly
feminized (Witz, 2013), such as Nursing and Education, as well as male-health oriented areas.
In this context, observed gender homophily could be a second-order effect of the gender com-
position of a discipline if researchers of a given research area acknowledge individuals from
their own area. Además, observed gender differences and more generally the greater propor-
tion of male acknowledgees within our data set could also be a second-order effect, explained
by the overrepresentation of researchers of higher academic status among the acknowledgees.
Given the well-known overrepresentation of men in positions of higher rank in the scientific
comunidad (Charles, 2003; Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, & Uzzi, 2000), the observed overrepresen-
tation of acknowledgees with higher academic status implies a greater proportion of men
among acknowledgees. The gender differences we found could thus be due, at least in part,
to second-order effects, without necessarily being a direct reflection of gender-biased ac-
knowledgement practices.
4.1. Limitaciones
Some limitations relating to our data source and methods must be considered when interpret-
ing our results. Primero, acknowledgement data are limited to funded research, because they are
collected with the intended objective of tracking funded research (Web of Science, 2009).
Acknowledgements are thus collected and indexed by WoS only if they include some kind
of funding information. These indexation criteria could induce a bias toward funded research
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
591
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
and funding-related aspects of acknowledgements. Segundo, the gender assignation algorithm
we used, Wiki-Gendersort (Bérubé et al., 2020) presents a limitation that is common to most
gender assignment tools: lower reliability for names of Asian origin, and more specifically
Chinese names. It is thus safe to suppose that Chinese names are overrepresented in the un-
known gender category (Santamaría & Mihaljevic´, 2018). Finalmente, our results concerning the
academic status of acknowledgees are restricted to individuals who have already published. Él
is thus reasonable to assume that this subset of acknowledgees might be characterized by a
higher academic status than the rest of the acknowledgees who have not published, ser
either less-experienced researchers or technicians and assistants. Como consecuencia, our con-
clusions might not apply to acknowledgees who have not published.
5. CONCLUSIÓN
Scientific collaboration is often synonymous with coauthorship, despite the fact that it remains
a partial indicator of collaboration (katz & Martín, 1997). Sin embargo, collaborators are not al-
ways authors of the papers to which they have contributed, and acknowledgements can help
reveal not only the contribution of these nonauthor collaborators but also their sociodemo-
graphic characteristics, making it possible to draw new insights on the social structure of sci-
ence as well as on practices of collaboration, division of labor, and credit attribution.
Regarding the academic status of acknowledgees, our results show that acknowledgees
who have already published tend to have a higher position in the academic hierarchy com-
pared to all of WoS authors. These findings indicate that acknowledgements are not limited to
less-experienced researchers whose contributions cannot justify authorship but also extend to
more experienced researchers.
Our results also show that women are underrepresented in acknowledgements. In a broader
contexto, academic stereotypes have been shown to act as gatekeepers by steering women
away from certain fields (Cheryan, Master, & Meltzoff, 2015). Perceived underrepresentation
of women, whether considering authorships or acknowledged contributions, can thus contrib-
ute to academic gendered stereotypes and exacerbate gender disparities in both local and
global scientific communities (Dung et al., 2019; Larivière et al., 2013; West et al., 2013).
EXPRESIONES DE GRATITUD
The authors would like to thank the two reviewers for their helpful comments and Gita Ghiasi
for her help with Wiki-Gendersort.
CONTRIBUCIONES DE AUTOR
Adèle Paul-Hus: Conceptualización, Análisis formal, Adquisición de financiación, Investigación,
Metodología, Administración de proyecto, Visualización, Writing–original draft, Writing–review &
edición. Philippe Mongeon: Conceptualización, Curación de datos, Análisis formal, Investigación,
Metodología, Software, Writing–review & edición. Maxime Sainte-Marie: Curación de datos,
Metodología, Software, Visualización, Writing–review & edición. Vincent Larivière: Fondos
adquisición, Recursos, Supervisión, Writing–review & edición.
CONFLICTO DE INTERESES
Vincent Larivière is currently Associate Editor of Quantitative Science Studies. This does not
alter our adherence to Quantitative Science Studies policies. The authors have no other com-
peting interests to declare.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
592
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
INFORMACIÓN DE FINANCIACIÓN
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada: Joseph-Armand Bombardier CGS Doctoral Scholarships (Casa de Pablo); Insight
Development Grant (Larivière).
DISPONIBILIDAD DE DATOS
Restrictions apply to the availability of the bibliometric data, which is used under license from
Clarivate Analytics. Readers can contact Clarivate Analytics at the following URL: http://
clarivate.com/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery/web-of-science/.
REFERENCIAS
Araújo, mi. B., Araújo, norte. A. METRO., Moreira, A. A., Herrmann, h. J., &
Andrade, j. S., Jr. (2017). Gender differences in scientific collab-
orations: Women are more egalitarian than men. MÁS UNO, 12(5),
e0176791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176791
Bérubé, NORTE., Sainte-Marie, METRO., Ghiasi, GRAMO., & Larivière V. (2020).
Wiki-Gendersort: Automatic gender detection using first names
in Wikipedia. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ezw7p
Bird, S., Klein, MI., & Loper, mi. (2009). Natural Language processing
with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit.
Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly Media.
Bourdieu, PAG. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the
social conditions of the progress of reason. Ciencias Sociales
Información, 14(6), 19–47.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, mi. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strate-
gies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital.
Política de investigación, 33(4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2004.01.008
Bozeman, B., & Youtie, j. (2016). Trouble in paradise: Problems in
academic research co-authoring. Science and Engineering Ethics,
22(6), 1717–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5
Caron, MI., & van Eck, norte. j. (2014). Large scale author name disambig-
uation using rule-based scoring and clustering. 19th International
Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. “Context
cuenta: Pathways to master big data and little data,” páginas. 79–86.
Leiden, Los países bajos.
Charles, METRO. (2003). Deciphering sex segregation: Vertical and hor-
izontal inequalities in ten national labor markets. Acta
Sociologica, 46(4), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0001699303464001
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. norte. (2015). Cultural stereo-
types as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer sci-
ence and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Fronteras en
Psicología, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Coates, C. (1999). Interpreting academic acknowledgements in
English studies: Professors, their partners, and peers. Inglés
Studies in Canada, 25(3–4), 253–276.
Col, j. r., & Col, S. (1973). Social stratification in science.
chicago: University of Chicago Press.
costas, r., & van Leeuwen, t. norte. (2012). Approaching the “reward
triangle”: General analysis of the presence of funding acknowl-
edgments and “peer interactive communication” in scientific
publicaciones. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 63(8), 1647–1661.
Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar’s courtesy: The role of acknowledge-
ment in the primary communication process. Londres: taylor
graham.
Cronin, B., Davenport, MI., & Martinson, A. (1997). Women’s stud-
es: Bibliometric and content analysis of the formative years.
Journal of Documentation, 53(2), 123–138. Consulté à l’adresse
Sociological Abstracts. (61557089; 9805982)
Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordones, METRO. (2014). Acknowledgments in scien-
tific publications: Presence in Spanish science and text patterns
across disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 65(9), 1834–1849. https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.23081
Dung, S. K., López, A., Barragan, mi. l., reyes, R.-J., Thu, r.,
Castellanos, MI., … Rohlfs, R. V. (2019). Illuminating women’s
hidden contribution to historical theoretical population genetics.
Genetics, 211(2), 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.
118.301277
Etzkowitz, h., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: El
advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge:
Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
Finkel, j. r., Grenager, T., & Manning, C. (2005). Incorporating
non-local information into information extraction systems by
Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on
Asociación de Lingüística Computacional, páginas. 363–370. https://
doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219885
Haeussler, C., & Sauermann, h. (2013). Credit where credit is due?
The impact of project contributions and social factors on author-
ship and inventorship. Política de investigación, 42(3), 688–703. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.009
Heffner, A. GRAMO. (1979). Authorship recognition of subordinates in
collaborative research. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 377–
384. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277900900305
Hoder-Salmon, METRO. (1978). Collecting scholar’s wives. Feminist
Estudios, 4(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177543
Ibarra, h. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differ-
ences in network structure and access in an advertising firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422–447. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393451
Jabbehdari, S., & Walsh, j. PAG. (2017). Authorship norms and pro-
ject structures in science. Ciencia, Tecnología, & Humano
V a l u e s , 4 2 ( 5 ) , 8 7 2 – 9 0 0 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 /
0162243917697192
katz, j. S., & Martín, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration?
Política de investigación, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
7333(96)00917-1
Laband, D. NORTE., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration.
Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662. https://doi.org/
10.1086/262132
Larivière, v., Rocas, NORTE., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, PAG., Pablo-
(2016). Contributorship and
Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R.
labor in knowledge production. Social Studies
division of
de Ciencia, 46(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0306312716650046
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
593
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Larivière, v., En, C. C., Gingras, y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R.
(2013). Global gender disparities in science. Naturaleza, 504(7479),
211–213.
Laudel, GRAMO. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships?
Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3152/
147154402781776961
Lewis-Beck, j. A. (1980). The participation of men and women in
educational research: Another look. Sex Roles, 6(4), 607–610.
Consulté à l’adresse Sociological Abstracts. (60067169;
82M5348)
Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F., & Zirulia, l. (2013). Inventorship and
authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of
scientific credit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
95, 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016
Marušic´, A., Bošnjak, l., & Jeroncˇic´, A. (2011). A systematic review
of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship
across scholarly disciplines. MÁS UNO, 6(9), e23477. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477
Mattsson, PAG., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, PAG. (2011). Is correspondence
reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the rela-
tion between corresponding author and byline position.
cienciometria, 87(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
010-0310-9
McPherson, METRO., Smith-Lovin, l., & Cocinar, j. METRO. (2001). Birds of a feather:
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1),
415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Merton, R. k. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Ciencia,
159(3810), 56–63.
Merton, R. k. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and em-
pirical investigations. Chicago and London: Chicago University
Prensa.
moore, METRO. (1984). Sex and acknowledgements: A nonreactive
estudiar. Sex Roles, 10(11–12), 1021–1031. Consulté à l’adresse
Sociological Abstracts. (61073954; 85O6117)
Fundación Nacional de Ciencia. (2006). Science and Engineering
Indicators. Chapter 5: Academic Research and Development.
Data and Terminology. Consulté à l’adresse http://www.nsf.
gov/statistics/seind06/c5/c5s3.htm#sb1
patel, norte. (1973). Collaboration in the professional growth of
American sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77–92.
Casa de Pablo, A., Rocas, NORTE., & costas, R. (2016). Characterization,
descripción, and considerations for the use of funding acknowl-
edgement data in Web of Science. cienciometria, 108(1), 167–182.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1953-y
Casa de Pablo, A., Mongeon, PAG., Sainte-Marie, METRO., & Larivière, V.
(2017a). The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by
combining authorship and acknowledgements. Diario de
Informetrics, 11(1) , 80–87. https://do i.org/10.1016/j.
joi.2016.11.005
Casa de Pablo, A., Díaz-Faes, A. A., Sainte-Marie, METRO., Rocas, NORTE.,
costas, r., & Larivière, V.
(2017b). Beyond funding:
Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sci-
ences. MÁS UNO, 12(10), e0185578. https://doi.org/10.1371/
diario.pone.0185578
Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship?
cienciometria, 109(3), 1939–1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-016-2127-7
Precio, D. j. de S., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an Invisible
College. Psicólogo americano, 21(11), 1011–1018.
Santamaría, l., & Mihaljevic´, h. (2018). Comparison and bench-
mark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer
Ciencia, 4, e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156
Shapin, S. (1989). The Invisible Technician. American Scientist, 77(6),
554–563.
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning
in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171–198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101047
Herrero, MI., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, v., Sugimoto,
C. r., Casa de Pablo, A., … Resnik, D. B. (2019). Misconduct and mis-
behavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative
ciencia. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4
Sugimoto, C. r., & Cronin, B. (2012). Biobibliometric profiling:
An examination of multifaceted approaches to scholarship.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Tecnología, 63(3), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21695
Apostar, mi. (2009). Reconocimiento, reward and responsibility: Why the
authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas, 62(2), 109–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.001
Web of Science. (2009). Funding acknowledgements. http://wok
info.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/
fundingsearch/
Oeste,
j. D.,
Jacquet,
J., &
Bergstrom, C. t. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly au-
thorship. MÁS UNO, 8(7), e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/
diario.pone.0066212
J., Rey, METRO. METRO., Correll, S.
Wislar, j. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, PAG. B., & DeAngelis, C. D.
(2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedi-
cal journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ, 343, d6128. https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128
Witz, A. (2013). Professions and patriarchy. Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203167786
Zuckerman, h. A. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the
United States. New Jersey: Editores de transacciones.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
594
Who are the acknowledgees?
APPENDIX
Descriptive statistics for the number of publications, total field-normalized citations, academic
edad, and percentage of leading authorships, by discipline
Mesa 4. Descriptive statistics for the number of publications, by discipline
Number of publications
Biología
Biomedical Research
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Earth and Space
Engineering and Technology
Salud
Matemáticas
Physics
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
Significar
Ackn WoS
8
37
57
68
43
56
49
42
44
83
23
41
24
7
9
10
10
6
4
10
19
5
8
5
Median
Ackn WoS
16
25
28
13
31
19
13
28
46
12
15
13
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
Standard deviation
WoS
Ackn
20.3
59.2
85.2
105.1
71.6
76.3
84.7
75.1
56.5
122.3
39.0
68.2
34.9
22.5
32.1
31.1
25.8
17.1
11.1
20.4
76.8
9.3
20.4
10.6
Nota: Ackn = Acknowledgees who are also authors; WoS = All authors who published at least one article or
review in WoS between 2015 y 2017.
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
595
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 5. Descriptive statistics for the total field-normalized citations, by discipline
Biología
Total field-normalized citations
Significar
Ackn WoS
10.0
61.4
Median
Ackn WoS
1.5
17.5
Standard deviation
WoS
Ackn
35.0
137.7
Biomedical Research
126.5
10.9
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Earth and Space
Engineering and Technology
Salud
Matemáticas
Physics
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
119.1
11.3
81.5
14.2
118.9
15.0
92.4
84.6
7.2
5.1
80.6
11.4
217.5
37.2
49.3
6.7
75.5
11.3
50.6
7.9
37.2
34.9
15.9
44.4
23.1
15.4
38.6
81.9
17.9
18.1
18.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
271.7
256.3
186.9
240.4
225.8
211.9
163.4
432.1
105.9
174.5
102.3
51.4
56.5
68.1
62.5
35.8
20.6
42.3
205.7
24.8
42.5
27.6
Nota: Ackn = Acknowledgees who are also authors; WoS = All authors who published at least one article or
review in WoS between 2015 y 2017.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
/
.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
596
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 6. Descriptive statistics for the academic age, by discipline
Significar
Ackn WoS
Academic age
Median
Ackn WoS
Biología
Biomedical Research
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Earth and Space
Engineering and Technology
Salud
Matemáticas
Physics
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
14
15
15
13
16
13
13
18
16
14
13
14
5
4
4
4
5
3
3
6
5
4
5
5
12
14
12
11
14
11
10
17
15
12
10
12
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Standard deviation
WoS
Ackn
7
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
6
7
7
5
5
8
7
6
7
7
Nota: Ackn = Acknowledgees who are also authors; WoS = All authors who published at least one article or
review in WoS between 2015 y 2017.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
597
Who are the acknowledgees?
Mesa 7. Descriptive statistics for the percentages of leading authorships, by discipline
Biología
Biomedical Research
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Earth and Space
Engineering and Technology
Salud
Matemáticas
Physics
Professional Fields
Psicología
Social Sciences
Percentage of leading authorships
Significar
Ackn WoS
29.4
29.0
Median
Ackn WoS
0.0
25.0
Standard deviation
WoS
Ackn
37.3
26.7
26.4
28.7
21.9
27.6
30.4
27.9
56.1
34.0
52.7
32.4
56.4
23.5
29.1
22.6
28.4
32.8
27.6
52.6
26.2
47.6
34.7
53.9
23.9
25.0
16.3
23.5
25.0
20.3
56.3
28.8
50.4
29.1
57.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.6
0.0
50.0
22.2
60.0
23.0
24.9
24.4
23.5
27.7
29.1
28.9
26.0
31.6
28.4
32.0
35.0
38.3
34.5
37.3
41.0
39.0
40.8
36.8
42.6
38.6
42.3
Nota: Ackn = Acknowledgees who are also authors; WoS = All authors who published at least one article or
review in WoS between 2015 y 2017.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
/
mi
d
tu
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
1
2
5
8
2
1
8
8
5
7
7
0
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
3
6
pag
d
.
/
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Estudios de ciencias cuantitativas
598
