The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020

Lokman I. Meho

126 citations0/0 files storedQuantitative Science Studies

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Career Development and Diversity Gender Diversity and Inequality

Abstract

Abstract This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. I find that (a) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016–2020; and (d) when the numbers of female full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 126 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Matthew Effect in Science 2008Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 1968The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.2014Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys 2005Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?2015Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines 2013Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science 2016Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?

Cited by

2023Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration 2023Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?2024International mobility matters: Research collaboration and scientific productivity 2023Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice 2024Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.