• search hit 1 of 1
Back to Result List

Scientific sexism

  • OBJECTIVE: To investigate gender inequity in the scientific production of the University of Sao Paulo. METHODS: Members of the University of Sao Paulo faculty are the study population. The Web of Science repository was the source of the publication metrics. We selected the measures: total publications and citations, average of citations per year and item, H-index, and history of citations between 1950 and 2019. We used the name of the faculty member as a proxy to the gender identity. We use descriptive statistics to characterize the metrics. We evaluated the scissors effect by selecting faculty members with a high H-index. The historical series of citations was projected until 2100. We carry out analyses for the general population and working time subgroups: less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and 20 years or more. RESULTS: Of the 8,325 faculty members, we included 3,067 (36.8%). Among those included, 1,893 (61.7%) were male and 1,174 (38.28%) female. The male gender presented higher values in the publication metricsOBJECTIVE: To investigate gender inequity in the scientific production of the University of Sao Paulo. METHODS: Members of the University of Sao Paulo faculty are the study population. The Web of Science repository was the source of the publication metrics. We selected the measures: total publications and citations, average of citations per year and item, H-index, and history of citations between 1950 and 2019. We used the name of the faculty member as a proxy to the gender identity. We use descriptive statistics to characterize the metrics. We evaluated the scissors effect by selecting faculty members with a high H-index. The historical series of citations was projected until 2100. We carry out analyses for the general population and working time subgroups: less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and 20 years or more. RESULTS: Of the 8,325 faculty members, we included 3,067 (36.8%). Among those included, 1,893 (61.7%) were male and 1,174 (38.28%) female. The male gender presented higher values in the publication metrics (average of articles: M = 67.0 versus F = 49.7; average of citations/year: M = 53.9 versus F = 35.9), and H-index (M = 14.5 versus F = 12.4). Among the 100 individuals with the highest H-index (>= 37), 83% are male. The male curve grows faster in the historical series of citations, opening a difference between the groups whose separation is confirmed by the projection. DISCUSSION: Scientific production at the Universidade de Sao Paulo is subject to a gender bias. Two-thirds of the faculty are male, and hiring over the past few decades perpetuates this pattern. The large majority of high impact faculty members are male. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that the Universidade de Sao Paulo will not overcome gender inequality in scientific production without substantive affirmative action. Development does not happen by chance but through choices that are affirmative, decisive, and long-term oriented.show moreshow less

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author details:Livia Oliveira-CiabatiORCiD, Luciane Loures dos SantosORCiD, Annie Hsiou SchmaltzORCiD, Ariane Morassi SassoORCiD, Margaret de CastroORCiD, João Paulo SouzaORCiD
DOI:https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055002939
ISSN:1518-8787
Pubmed ID:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34730746
Title of parent work (English):Revista de saúde pública : publication of the Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo = Journal of public health
Subtitle (English):the gender bias in the scientific production of the Universidade de São Paulo
Publisher:Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo
Place of publishing:São Paulo
Publication type:Article
Language:English
Date of first publication:2021/10/29
Publication year:2021
Release date:2024/01/08
Tag:Gender Inequality; Scientific Publication Indicators; Sexism
Volume:55
Article number:46
Number of pages:12
Organizational units:An-Institute / Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH
DDC classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Peer review:Referiert
Publishing method:Open Access / Gold Open-Access
DOAJ gelistet
License (German):License LogoCC-BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International
Accept ✔
This website uses technically necessary session cookies. By continuing to use the website, you agree to this. You can find our privacy policy here.