5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gender Disparities in Middle Authorship

      research-article
      * , a , , a
      Social Psychological Bulletin
      PsychOpen
      social and personality psychology, authorship, bibliometric, gender, collaboration

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          Women increasingly occupy jobs in psychological research, but continue to face career barriers. One such barrier is fewer authorship and publication opportunities, with women often having fewer first authorships than men. In this research, we examine the overlooked role of middle authorship. Middle authorship contributes to various indices of productivity, while having lower costs. Study 1 looks at five years of authorship in two major journals in social and personality psychology. Study 2 examines publication records of all social psychology faculty in the Netherlands. Both studies find that women have fewer authorship possibilities: In Study 1, women were underrepresented as authors in academic journals, while women in Study 2 had shorter publication lists. More importantly, this tendency was exacerbated for middle authorship positions. Furthermore, the percentage of middle authorship publications were positively related to more publications overall. A focus on middle authorship highlights previously underestimated challenges women continue to face in psychological research.

          Abstract

          • 22% of collaborative publications had all-male authors and 13% had all-female authors.

          • Focus on first-authorship may underestimate gender disparities in publication rates.

          • Gender disparities in middle authorship may harm women’s careers via lower productivity metrics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

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

          A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.

          Stereotype research emphasizes systematic processes over seemingly arbitrary contents, but content also may prove systematic. On the basis of stereotypes' intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (a) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (b) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (c) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence-warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (d) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. Nine varied samples rated gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and disability out-groups. Contrary to antipathy models, 2 dimensions mattered, and many stereotypes were mixed, either pitying (low competence, high warmth subordinates) or envying (high competence, low warmth competitors). Stereotypically, status predicted competence, and competition predicted low warmth.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles.

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

              The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity

              S Lee (2005)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                SPB
                Soc Psychol Bull
                Social Psychological Bulletin
                Soc. Psychol. Bull.
                PsychOpen
                2569-653X
                30 March 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 1
                : e2897
                Affiliations
                [a ]Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne , Cologne, , Germany
                [2]University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes
                [* ]Political Psychology, Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Str. 2, 50931 Köln, Germany. alexandra.fleischmann@ 123456uni-koeln.de
                Article
                spb.2897
                10.32872/spb.2897
                9e395af0-386c-49bc-a640-9d5ac3939378
                Copyright @ 2021

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 02 March 2020
                : 20 October 2020
                Categories
                Short Research Report
                Data
                Materials

                Psychology
                social and personality psychology,authorship,bibliometric,gender,collaboration
                Psychology
                social and personality psychology, authorship, bibliometric, gender, collaboration

                Comments

                Comment on this article