22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 2 , 3
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.

          Design

          Retrospective observational study.

          Data sources

          Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017.

          Main outcome measures

          Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field.

          Results

          Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples.

          Conclusions

          Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management.

          Three experiments tested and extended recent theory regarding motivational influences on impression formation (S. T. Fiske & S. L. Neuberg, 1990; J. L. Hilton & J. M. Darley, 1991) in the context of an impression management dilemma that women face: Self-promotion may be instrumental for managing a competent impression, yet women who self-promote may suffer social reprisals for violating gender prescriptions to be modest. Experiment 1 investigated the influence of perceivers' goals on processes that inhibit stereotypical thinking, and reactions to counterstereotypical behavior. Experiments 2-3 extended these findings by including male targets. For female targets, self-promotion led to higher competence ratings but incurred social attraction and hireability costs unless perceivers were outcome-dependent males. For male targets, self-effacement decreased competence and hireability ratings, though its effects on social attraction were inconsistent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014.

              The proportion of women at the rank of full professor in US medical schools has not increased since 1980 and remains below that of men. Whether differences in age, experience, specialty, and research productivity between sexes explain persistent disparities in faculty rank has not been studied.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: Frederick Frank ’54 and Mary C Tanner professor of management
                Role: Ruth L. Newhouse associate professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-US
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                16 December 2019
                : 367
                : l6573
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
                [2 ]Yale University, School of Management, New Haven, CT, USA
                [3 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M J Lerchenmueller marc.lerchenmueller@ 123456uni-mannheim.de (or @MLerchenmueller on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8875-3602
                Article
                lerm051129
                10.1136/bmj.l6573
                7190066
                31843745
                51ef6dd4-c067-439f-a13c-2f514df50c63
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 November 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Christmas 2019: Sweet Little Lies

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article