Science - USA (2019-01-04)

I

previously reported results of a study on au-

thor gender in Science (science.sciencemag.org/

content/355/6323/329) that was based on the ex-

amination of a random sample of approximately

2600 authors for which gender was inferred by

painstaking analysis of websites and similar sourc-

es. Unfortunately, this approach does not scale

well to large samples necessary for many analyses.

We have since initiated systematic efforts to examine

gender distributions of key populations of authors and

reviewers for the Science family of journals using addi-

tional data and tools and plan to use this information

to guide policy develop-

ment and other appro-

priate steps to address

any gender disparities.

Since our initial study,

we have collected gender

and other demographic

information voluntarily

from approximately 5000

individuals (authors and

reviewers). To extend this

dataset further, we’ve

used first name–based

gender inference software

that we validated and

calibrated with accurate

datasets, as described in

the accompanying Sci-

encehound post (https://

blogs.sciencemag.org/

sciencehound/2019/01/03/new-tools-for-gender-

analysis). The automated tool provides inferred genders

for more than 70% of the authors of both published and

rejected Science papers submitted from 2010 to 2017.

Based on comparisons with the individual-provided

dataset, these inferred genders are more than 93% ac-

curate on an individual basis. Furthermore, the inferred

gender information can be extended to populations

with gender distributions that appear to be more than

98% accurate.

The fractions of male and female authors for Re-

ports submitted to Science are nearly constant over the

8-year period examined. Twenty-five ± 1% of the first

authors are female, while 18 ± 1% of the correspond-

ing authors are female, consistent with the results from

our earlier analysis. These figures reflect the weighted

averages across the different fields covered by Science.

Separating submissions by field reveals that 30% of first

authors of submissions in the life sciences are female,

compared with 16% in the physical sciences and 22% in

other fields. The values for corresponding authors are

19, 12, and 20%, respectively.

The gender distributions for papers that were pub-

lished can be compared with those for the overall sub-

missions pool. The acceptance rates for Reports were

not significantly different for female as compared to

male first authors for papers submitted in 2016 and

2017, although significant differences were observed

favoring male authors from 2011 to 2015. Further work

is in progress to determine if these disparities are

due to gender biases in reviews, editorial decisions,

or other factors such as

institutional differences

and preferences. Signifi-

cant differences in Re-

port acceptance rates by

gender of corresponding

authors were observed

in 2012, 2014, and 2015.

We can also examine

other article types. For

example, the fraction

of female correspond-

ing authors for Perspec-

tives (driven largely by

editorial invitations to

Perspective authors and,

indirectly, peer review-

ers) grew steadily from

19 to 26% from 2010 to

2017. The Science news
      team’s analysis of data regarding its use of women and
      men as sources and in quotes in its stories reveals an
      increase in the fraction of quoted female sources from
      approximately 20% to more than 30% over the course
      of 2018.
      With these data and tools in place, we are now well
      positioned for further analyses and actions that ad-
      dress gender disparities. We plan to examine the gender
      distribution of our peer reviewers. Social science stud-
      ies indicate that women and men tend to have similar
      gender biases, based on their perceptions of the gender
      distribution of the population that they are examining.
      Nonetheless, ensuring that gender distributions for re-
      viewers approximate those for authors is good practice,
      and peer reviewers do get access to exciting scientific
      results and are often invited to write Perspectives. We
      plan to share these and other analyses and encourage
      others to perform and share similar examinations.
      –Jeremy Berg

Examining author gender data

Editor-in-Chief,

Science Journals.

[email protected]

10.1126/science.aaw

GRAPH: J. BERG/

SCIENCE

; (TOP RIGHT) TERRY CLARK

SCIENCE sciencemag.org 4 JANUARY 2019 • VOL 363 ISSUE 6422 7

EDITORIAL

0.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.

Acceptance rates for Reports by gender of frst authors

Acceptance rate

Female

Male

0.

0.

0.

DA_0104Editorial_R1.indd 7 1/4/19 3:37 PM

Published by AAAS

Corrected 4 January 2019. See full text.

on January 7, 2019^

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Downloaded from