| Title |
Are all researchers male? Gender misattributions in citations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-016-2192-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michał Krawczyk |
| Abstract |
I screen academic literature for cases of misattribution of cited author's gender. While such mistakes are overall not common, their frequency depends dramatically on the gender of the cited author. Female scholar are cited as if they were male more than ten times more often than the opposite happens, probably revealing that citers are influenced by the gender-science stereotype. The gender of the citing author and the field of study appear to have only limited effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 135 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 17 | 13% |
| United States | 15 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 9% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| Germany | 4 | 3% |
| Italy | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 64 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 91 | 67% |
| Scientists | 31 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 10 | 19% |
| Psychology | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 32% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2019.
All research outputs
#437,908
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#43
of 2,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,061
of 425,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#3
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.