Women in Academic Science

By S. Ceci, D. Ginther, S. Kahn, Wendy M. Williams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2014

736 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6426a2de7f7f71e00bbce122d741c106d0a217ae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Dakota S. Murray
2. Steve Stewart-Williams
3. Kyle Siler
4. Vincent Larivière
5. L. Halsey
6. C. W. Fox
7. Cassidy R. Sugimoto
8. Wei Mun Chan

Citations in the corpus

• Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal (2016, background): “Researchers have identified a wide variety of factors that contribute to gender disparity in the sciences and in scientific publishing (Larivi ere et al. 2013; Ceci et al. 2014).”
• Math, girls and socialism (2018, unknown): “However, they still accumulate a specific mix of human capital, neglecting mathematics-intensive fields (Ceci et al. 2014, Blau & Kahn 2017). The broad picture is that girls have closed the gap and conquered most of the avenues to professional success, such as business, medicine, law and biology, no”
• Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? (2020, background): “On the contrary, they are generally more likely to be (Ceci, 2018).6 This is the opposite of what we would expect if there were pervasive antifemale bias in STEM.”
• Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions (2016, unknown): “recently reviewed the literature for consistent or discernible favoritism of males across various STEM academic fields (Ceci et al. 2014; Ceci et al. 2009).”
• Raising Doubt in Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact (2018, background): “The data have important implications for women in academia, particularly because women face biases early in the selection process (Bailyn, 2003; Eveline, 2005; Pyke, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012; Westring et al., 2012; cf. Ceci et al., 2014a, b).”
• Women in Academic Science: Experimental Findings From Hiring Studies (2018, methodology): “, Moore & Johnson, 2011), and others demonstrating the role of male hormones (Knickmeyer & Baron-Cohen, 2006), with some reporting an association between prenatal testosterone and later spatial ability, all of which we discussed elsewhere (Ceci et al. 2014; Valla & Ceci, 2011). Eliot (2009), Miller ”
• Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review (2018, background): “For example, 65 there are gendered differences in access to funding, domestic responsibilities, and 66 cultural expectations of career preferences and ability [46,47] that may adversely impact 67 manuscript preparation and submission.”