ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Systematic Review
Revised

Gender gaps in research: a systematic review

[version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 19 Feb 2024
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Despite significant advancements in closing the global gender gap, there is still much progress to be made, particularly in the field of science and scientific research. Numerous studies have addressed this issue and identified a variety of factors that contribute to gender asymmetries in research.

Methods

This study aimed to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research present in the most cited studies of the past ten years as a first step towards closing these differences. Through a systematic literature review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology.

Results

The results lead us to identify four dimensions to classify the determinants of the gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile with their respective quantitative or qualitative indicators.

Conclusions

As a potential basis for further modeling that offers greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as the identification of targeted strategies aimed at reducing gender gaps in research.

Keywords

Gender gaps, discrimination, segregation, research

Revised Amendments from Version 2

We have read very carefully the reviewer's comments, which we have responded to and additionally we have incorporated a limitations paragraph in the scientific article to comply with the reviewer's comments.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lorenzo Escot

Introduction

As indicated by the Global Gender Gap Report 2022, it will take 132 years to close the global gender gap, statistics designed to measure gender equality and inequality such as income, political representation, wealth accumulation, tertiary education levels, stress levels (World Economic Forum, 2022). In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, based on the current rate of progress, the region will close the gap in 67 years (Mujeres 360, 2022). Despite notable advancements in the region, some countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico) appear to have stagnated, while others (Peru, Guyana, and Chile) are improving their gender parity outcomes. At the other end of the spectrum, countries such as Colombia, Honduras, Barbados, and Belize have widened the gender gap. These results contrast with the Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to reduce gender inequalities by 2030 (United Nations, 2015) and hinder the increase in scientific productivity by 15% to 20% (International Labor Organization, 2017; Science Metrix Inc., 2018), highlighting the impact that achievements in reducing inequality have on the global economy and closing social gaps.

In recent years, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate differences in scientific productivity (Abramo et al., 2013; López-Bassols et al., 2018; Pinho-Gomes et al., 2020) in various areas such as psychology (Mayer & Rathmann, 2018), elite researchers (et al., 2020), science and technology (Pons et al., 2013). Others have focused on identifying achievements and challenges (Osorio, 2005), obstacles and barriers (García-Jiménez & Herrero, 2022; Ramírez López & Bermúdez Urbina, 2015; Valenzuela et al., 2022), to mention a few. The diversity of research interests exploring aspects of the problem related to the determinants and/or explanatory factors of gender gaps in scientific research leads us to consider it relevant to conduct a comprehensive literature review focused on gender differences in scientific research. The aim is to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research as a first step towards closing these differences.

In order to conduct a relevant literature review, this research focused on a systematic review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology (Ensslin et al., 2013) to identify potential factors or determinants that make a difference in research for female researchers in the most relevant studies.

This research proposes classifying the determinants into four dimensions: i) Academic Offerings, ii) Research Policies, iii) Scientific Production, and iv) Researcher Profile. The proposed classification allows the recognition of each factor and the definition of indicators, whether quantitative or qualitative, that reflect the situation in the respective field. These indicators serve as a basis for subsequent modelling, offering greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as identifying strategies to address and reduce gender gaps in research.

Methods

This qualitative research, based on a documentary design, relies on a systematic review and bibliometric analysis, which enables the study of quantitative aspects of production, dissemination, and use of recorded information (Araújo & Arencibia, 2002; Morales-Morejón & Cruz Paz, 1995). The Proknow-C methodology (Ensslin et al., 2010) is employed, consisting of three stages: Development of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP), bibliometric analysis and systemic analysis. The research proposes to classify the information into 4 factors: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile (Rivera-Lozada et al., 2022).

I) Development of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP). The Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) refers to the result of the sampling conducted on the relevant scientific literature concerning the gender gap in research. For defining the databases, we established the axes and keywords for the search, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Definition of Axes and Keywords.

AxesKeywords
Scientific researchResearch, scientific production, scientific recognition, scientific publications
Research barriersObstacles or barriers or challenges, scientific research
Gender gapsGender gap, gender inequality, historical inequality, women

The databases were selected to enable filtering with Boolean equations in English and/or Spanish, differentiating the type of publication (book or article) and the temporal horizon (2012-2023).

The verification of compliance with these requirements is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Selection of databases.

DatabasesFieldsBoolean expressionsTemporal horizonType of publicationLast revision date
Scopus2nd week of May
Redalyc2nd week of May
La referencia2nd week of May
Base-search.net2nd week of May
Web of science2nd week of May
Scielo2nd week of May
DOAJ2nd week of May
Ebsco2nd week of May

All documents that provided relevant information on the determinants of scientific research and the gender gaps in it were selected (Table 2a). The selected documentation was tabulated and classified according to objectives, methodology, variables, population, year of publication, results and conclusions. This classification served as a reference to identify the most pertinent, novel, curious or relevant documents that required special attention.

Table 2a. Bank articles according to the database.

DATA BASE
Key wordsRedalycLa ReferenciaBase-search.netScielo
ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)
"female researchers "+"barriers "+"gender"1142900601591
"research "+"scientific production "+"obstacles" + "women"5656409841031
"scientific production" + "inequality"1632000090
"scientific production" + "gender inequality" + "challenges"631000000
"scientific publications" + "women"19919921101414
"profile" +"women researchers"122004100
"determinants" +"women researchers"21111000
"perception" +"women researchers"1101031100
"incentives" +"women researchers"22404011
"scientific research" + "women"106004163014146767
"scientific research" + "women in research"77880000
TOTAL163529242021310152625384
DATA BASE
Key wordsDOAJScopus SpanishScopus EnglishWeb of scienceEbsco
ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)ResultsPotential results for the study (GBA)
"female researchers "+"barriers "+"gender"30000000904
"research "+"scientific production "+"obstacles" + "women"00335050161600
"scientific publications" + "women"989800330000
"profile" +"women researchers"10000000673
"perception" +"women researchers"10000000653
"incentives" +"women researchers"00000000600
"scientific research" + "women"87101119198800
"scientific research" + "women in research"6600007700
TOTAL995104447272313128210

Table 2b. Total potential results of each database.

DatabasePotential results for the study (GBA)Total GBA
Redalyc292636
La referencia13
Base-search.net26
Scielo84
DOAJ104
Scopus76
Web of science31
Ebsco10

Once the mentioned filters were applied, the Gross Bank Articles (GBA) was defined, resulting in 636 articles. The GBA was subjected to an adherence test by calculating a sample with a 95% confidence level and a maximum error of 10% to verify that each article contains at least one of the established keywords (Table 1).

The formula used is the following:

n=Z2pqNNE2+Z2pq

Where: n is the sample size of the GBA; Z is the parameter for the confidence level (1.96 for a confidence level of 95%); E is the allowable error (10%); p and q (50% each); and N = 636, being n = 83 elements of GBA (13%).

With these conditions, the sample size was determined to be 83 articles to be classified in descending order of citability, along with their main authors, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) and respective main authors.

#AuthorCitation#AuthorCitation#AuthorCitation
1(Abramo et al., 2013)23330(Montes & Gallego, 2017)660(Ruiz, 2021)0
2(Pinho-Gomes et al., 2020)20431(Torres, 2017)661(González, 2014)0
3(Mayer & Rathmann, 2018)10032(García, 2014)661(Gutiérrez et al., 2020)0
4(Montané & Carvalho, 2012)5433(Rojas-Solís et al., 2021)662(Barrios & Passerino, 2021)0
5(Guil Bozal, 2016)5234(Caballero Wangüemert, 2016)561(Pérez, 2019)0
6(Moreno Cubillos et al., 2012)4435(Sougou et al., 2022)562(Contreras et al., 2022)0
7(Stromquist, 2013)4336(Ayala, 2019)563(Noguera, 2019)0
8(et al., 2020)3737(Guzmán, 2019)464(Figueroa et al., 2015)0
9(Ramos, 2014)3538(Vargas et al., 2020)465(González, 2015)0
10(Nygaard & Bahgat, 2018)3439(Ferro, 2012)366(Palumbo et al., 2022)0
11(Pons et al., 2013)3140(Belloso & Sanz, 2017)367(Serrano, 2018)0
12(Cárdenas Tapia, 2015)2941(Al Shammary et al., 2021)268(Hernández & Treviño, 2016)0
13(Centeno-Leguía et al., 2020)1542(Cruz-Castro, 2021)169(Oliveira et al., 2021)0
14(Calvo & Rodríguez, 2012)1543(Florez et al., 2016)170(Berggren et al., 2022)0
15(Rodal, 2017)1344(Bordons et al., 2012)171(Mandıracıoğlu et al., 2018)0
16(Fox et al., 2017)1345(Burgos, 2013)172(Actis, 2021)0
17(Davis et al., 2022)1346(Gomez, 2020)173(Lima et al., 2021)0
18(Zacharia, 2020)1247(Lione, 2018)174(Alves, 2013)0
19(Ramírez López & Bermúdez Urbina, 2015)1148(Cervera & Rivera, 2020)075(Franz, 2020)0
20(Jesús et al., 2014)1149(Muñoz et al., 2021)076(de Oliveira et al., 2020)0
21(Dapía et al., 2019)1150(Valenzuela et al., 2022)077(Del Valle et al., 2012)0
22(Basurto Barcia & Ricaurte, 2016)1151(García-Jiménez & Herrero, 2022)078(Quintero & Ibáñez, 2012)0
23(Vargas et al., 2016)1052(Castro, 2018)079(García Macas & Ortiz Espinoza, 2014)0
24(Gnecco, 2016)1054(Ochoa, 2017)080(Susinos & Parrilla, 2013)0
25(Washburn et al., 2013)855(Ortiz-Ortega & Sánchez, 2017)081(López-Aguirre & Farías, 2022)0
26(González & Álvarez, 2016)756(Carrillo Espadas & Flores Galaz, 2023)082(Peñaranda et al., 2021)0
27(Martín, 2012)657(García et al., 2019)083(Cirer et al., 2020)0
28(Luna Morales & Luna Morales, 2018)658(Restrepo-Arango, 2016)0
29(Truffa, 2012)659(Quintero, 2019)0

After the review, it was confirmed that the 83 articles contain the defined keywords in the fields of keywords, title, and/or abstract, verifying adherence. The representation of the used databases in obtaining the RBP is shown in Figure 1. It highlights that the Redalyc database contributes the highest number of articles to the RBP, accounting for 47% of the total. Base-search.net follows with 14%, while the remaining 39% of the RBP is derived from databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, La referencia, DOAJ, Ebsco, Redalyc and Base-search.net.

ee68cbed-ee7b-49b2-bbb6-f131425d3acc_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Representativeness test of the RBP.

On the other hand, it is possible to evidence representativeness of RBP through citability of the articles. Table 4 shows the list of 21 articles of RBP which stand out due to a citability of 10 or higher. This number is determined to highlight the 25% of RBP.

Table 4. Table of highlighted articles.

YearAuthorsTitleCitation
2013Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, Gianluca MurgiacGender differences in research collaboration233
2020AnaC. Pinho Gomes, Sanne Peters, et al.Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship204
2018Sabrina J. Mayer, Justus M. K. RathmannHow does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions100
2012Montané, Alejandra; Pessoa de Carvalho, Maria EulinaDiálogo sobre género: justicia, equidad y
políticas de igualdad en educación superior (Brasil y España)
54
2016Ana Guil BozalGénero y construcción científica del conocimiento52
2012Carmen L. Moreno, Luz E. Sepúlveda, Luisa F. RestrepoDiscriminación y violencia de género en la univesidad de Caldas44
2013Nelly P. StromquistEducation Policies for Gender Equity:
Probing into State Responses
43
2020Creso Sa´ ID, Summer CowleyID, Magdalena Martinez, et al.Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa37
2014Ana M. González Ramos¿Camuflaje o transformación?
Estrategia profesional de las mujeres
en carreras tecnológicas altamente masculinizadas
35
2018Lynn P. Nygaard a, b, Karim BahgatWhat's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap34
2013Pons Peregort, Olga; Calvet Puig, M. Dolors; Tura Solvas, Marta; Muñoz Illescas, CristinaAnálisis de la Igualdad de Oportunidades de Género en la Ciencia y la Tecnología: Las carreras profesionales de las mujeres científicas y tecnólogas31
2015Cárdenas Tapia, MagaliLa participación de las mujeres investigadoras en México29
2020Dercy Centeno-Leguía a, Luz Morales-Concha b, Crislee E. Lopez c, Christian R. Mejia dMujeres científicas: características y factores asociados a la primera autoría y corresponsalía en revistas peruanas indizadas a Scielo, 2010-201516
2012Adelina Calvo Salvador y Carlos Rodríguez-HoyosAportaciones de los estudios de las
mujeres y del género a la organización
escolar, estado de la cuestión en España.
15
2017Asunción Bernárdez RodalLos estudios universitarios feministas y con perspectiva de género en España (2010-2015)15
2017Fox, Mary Franka
Send mail to Fox M.F.; Realff, Mary Lynnb et al.
International research collaboration among women engineers: frequency and perceived barriers, by regions13
2022Pamela B. Davis, Emma A. Meagher, Claire Pomeroy, William L. Lowe Jr, et al.Pandemic-related barriers to the success of women in research: a framework for action13
2020Prof. Dr. Zacharias C. Zacharia, Dr. Tasos Hovardas, Dr. Nikoletta X
Ms Maria Irakleous
Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender equality12
2015Dulce Karol Ramírez López, Flor Marina Bermúdez UrbinaAvances, retos y desafíos: aproximación al estado del conocimiento de los estudios de género en educación superior en México11
2014María Jesús Matilla Quiza
Esperanza Mó Romero
De la excepción a la normalidad: Mujeres científicas en la Historia11
s.fMaría Jesús Matilla Quiza
Esperanza Mó Romero
De la excepción a la normalidad: Mujeres científicas en la Historia11
2019María Dapía Conde
Ricardo Escudero Cid
Manuel Vidal López
¿Tiene género la ciencia? Conocimientos y actitudes hacia la Ciencia en niñas y niños de Educación Primaria11
2016Johanna Basurto Barcia
Carla Ricaurte-Quijano
Mujeres en turismo: Equidad de género en la docencia e investigación en el área de Guayaquil, Ecuador11
2016Vargas, Domingo; Requena, Jaime; Caputo, CarloGénero en la ciencia venezolana:
desvanecimiento de la brecha
10
2016Gnecco-Lizcano, Angela MaríaMujeres indígenas: experiencias sobre género e inclusión en la educación superior10

Data processing

Regarding the documentation selection process, it took the documents that met all the keywords proposed in the Boolean equation. The review, filtering of this documentation and analysis was done using the Mendeley literature manager Desktop version 1.19.8 and then exported the metadata of the publications obtained from the search were downloaded from the databases in Microsoft Excel format. For the underlying data, see Rivera-Lozada et al. (2023a). The phases of definition of the protocol, search and extraction of the initial data from the databases were carried out by all the authors of this publication. The search results are current as of the second week of May. The subsequent filtering of the successive phases was carried out by peer review among the authors.

Figure 2 contains the diagram of the process flow carried out to obtain our RBP. In the first instance, duplicate articles and articles that despite carrying out the search determining the interval of years, did not comply with this, are eliminated. Subsequently, those that contain the keywords in the title or in the abstract but any of both shows they are not related to the subject of study are excluded, such as the article “Analysis of the world scientific production on forced sterilization of women with disabilities between 1997 and 2016” (Concha & Ferrer, 2019), our Keyword: scientific production and women or the article “Women and aging in social research (1950-2018)” (Torralbo & Guizardi, 2020), our keywords: women and research. Then we obtained reports sought for retrieval but we do not have access to 40 of these, like the “Chapter 4 Gender and Economics in Latin America: a Systematic Analysis of Scientific Production in Scopus” (Maldonado & Quiñonez, 2021) and finally, the articles are organized from highest to lowest citation ability and the articles that are outside the sample of 83 articles that were determined with the aforementioned formula are excluded.

ee68cbed-ee7b-49b2-bbb6-f131425d3acc_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Temporal distribution of RBP articles.

Results

Bibliometric analysis

Figure 3 shows the number of articles from the RBP published in the period 2012-2022, as well as the number of highlighted articles from the RBP based on their citability, published within this time interval. It can be observed that the year 2014 marked a turning point in the decline of publications, reaching its peak in 2016, which also had the highest number of highlighted articles. However, this pattern does not repeat when considering the lowest number of published articles. For the RBP, the year with the lowest number of publications is 2014, while in terms of highlighted articles, the year with the fewest was 2021, where not a single article surpassed 10 citations.

ee68cbed-ee7b-49b2-bbb6-f131425d3acc_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Specialized journals publishing topics related to the gender gap in research.

Figure 3 highlights the articles from the RBP according to the journals where they were published. The list includes 32 journals that published the respective articles from the RBP, ordered according to the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index, which measures the prestige of the journals based on the citation count received by each publication. Notable journals such as BMJ Global Health, Journal of Technology Transfer, and Journal of English for Academic Purposes stand out with SJR indexes of 2.37, 1.70, and 1.32, respectively. There is a significant difference of 0.67 points between the first and second-ranked journals. However, the subsequent journals show a smaller decrease in their scores, as seen in the difference of 0.38 points between the second and third-ranked journals. The journal with the lowest index is Biblios, with 0.10 points.

Based on these prominent journals, the coverage years of the SJR index for the top 10 journals were identified, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP.

Scientific journalYears of index coverage
BMJ Global Health2016-2022
Journal of Technology Transfer1977-2022
Journal of English for Academic Purposes2002-2022
Journal of Informetrics2007-2022
Scientometrics1978-2022
Educación XX12008-2022
Plos One2006-2022
Sustainability2009-2022
Frontiers in Education2016-2022
Educar2018-2022

Furthermore, the year of the first publication on the gender gap in research was determined for the highlighted journals in the RBP, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Determination of the year when publications on the gender gap in research began.

Name of the scientific researchFirst year of publication on the topic
BMJ Global Health2016
Journal of Technology Transfer1993
Journal of English for Academic Purposes2003
Journal of Informetrics2007
Scientometrics2002
Educación XX12013
Plos One2012
Sustainability2014
Frontiers in Educationn.d
Educar2015

Along with the highlighted journals, information about the prominent authors in the RBP was also collected, selecting authors with the highest citability within the RBP, as shown in Figure 4. The figure compares the total number of publications of each author with the publications they have made related to the gender gap in research. Among these authors, Ana Pinho Gomes stands out with the highest number of total publications. Giovanni Abramo, Sanne Peters, and Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo also have a percentage of their total publications related to the topic of study, with 1%, 3%, and 4% respectively. In contrast, authors such as Pessoa de Carvalho, Ana Guil Bozal, and Alejandra Montané have a smaller number of publications but a higher involvement in the subject at hand, with 14%, 31%, and 8% respectively.

ee68cbed-ee7b-49b2-bbb6-f131425d3acc_figure4.gif

Figure 4. Prominent authors.

It is possible to identify the geographical areas where the studies on the gender gap in research included in the RBP were conducted, as shown in Figure 5.

ee68cbed-ee7b-49b2-bbb6-f131425d3acc_figure5.gif

Figure 5. Spatial Focus.

Geographical location of studies in the RBP.

Based on the information recorded in Figure 5, the evidence indicates that the country with the highest number of studies related to the gender gap in research was Mexico (29%), significantly surpassing other territories. Spanish publications ranked second (12%), followed by Colombian (8%), Argentinean (7%), Brazilian (7%), European (6%), Global Studies (6%), publications without a specific territory (5%), United States (4%), Chile (2%), and to a lesser extent, Venezuela, Turkey, Peru, Norway, Italy, Hungary, Honduras, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, and Africa (1% each). This provides the study with global perspectives.

In addition to the spatial focus, the classification of the RBP was incorporated according to the methodological approach of the studies, indicating that 42% were qualitative and 58% were quantitative.

The review made it possible to classify the potential determinants of scientific research: geographical location, position, dedication time, type of call, teaching classification or hierarchy, age, dependency load, inclusive financing funds, sexist bias, gender stereotypes, discrimination, institutional determinants, biases of evaluation committees, income, glass ceiling, scientific recognition or status, salary, motivations, sticky floor, labor contract, marital status, professional segregation, visibility of scientific production, among others.

The systemic analysis of the RBP allowed us to categorize the barriers contributing to the gender gap in research into four dimensions with their respective indicators: i) Academic Offerings: number of higher education institutions total number of careers, female and male enrolment, science careers, female and male enrolment in sciences (natural and social) ii) Research Policies: agency, call for proposals, inclusive funding, evaluation committee, institutional policy, discrimination, recognition or incentive, types of hiring, iii) Scientific Production: research category, publications number, patents, collaboration, segregation, citability, and iv) Researcher Profile: motivations, sticky floor, income, position, geographic location, education level, age, gender, marital status, dependency load, scale, acknowledgment.

i) Academic offerings: Ten percent of the RBP focused on explaining or analyzing gender gaps in research based on considerations that incorporate variables such as the number of educational institutions, professional careers offered, total enrolment, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers, and enrolment of women in natural sciences or STEM. In this regard, the results presented by López-Bassols et al. (2018) indicate that beyond acknowledging the existence of gender gaps in research, it is necessary to identify the areas or fields of knowledge where these gaps are most significant in order to correlate them with women’s participation and presence in higher education across various disciplines. Research conducted for Latin America and the Caribbean identifies family pressures, stereotypes, expectations, lack of mentors and role models, as well as vertical segregation and the “leaky pipeline” phenomenon as causal factors contributing to the existing differentials in women’s participation in research.

The authors propose considering three dimensions: actors within the national science and innovation system (higher education institutions, government, companies, NGOs), activities related to science and technology (teaching, research, publications, patents, funding, and innovative entrepreneurship), and obstacles or motivations (opportunities, attitudes, financial support, other incentives, role models, discrimination, and social biases). Based on the aforementioned, they establish a set of 16 indicators classified under higher education, careers in science and technology, scientific research, and innovation and innovative entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, the research conducted by García and Ortíz (2014) explores the individual and institutional determinants affecting gender gaps in scientific production in Ecuadorian universities. Using a linear regression model, they propose individual determinants that include academic degree, number of scholarship recipients, hours of dedication, age, and gender, as well as institutional determinants that incorporate the number of R&D projects, laboratories, executed budget for R&D, number of collaborators, among others. The research results indicate that institutional determinants have a significant and positive impact, while the number of PhDs still does not have a significant effect on scientific production. In particular, they find that women are less productive than men and that the age range with the highest productivity is between 30 and 39 years. Additionally, they found that the number of collaborators has a negative effect.

The UNESCO study on STEM education (2019) identifies four factors affecting gender gaps in research based on women’s participation in STEM education: individual factors (biological and psychological), family factors (parents’ beliefs, parents’ level of education, household socioeconomic status, and other characteristics), school factors (teaching staff, pedagogical strategies, teachers’ perceptions, interactions with students, textbooks, educational materials, curriculum, STEM equipment and resources, evaluation strategies and tools), and social factors (gender equality, social norms, policies and legislation, media and social communication).

The document debunks the belief in biological differences in the brains of men and women as an explanatory factor for their participation in STEM disciplines and research in this field. In this regard, neurological plasticity, understood as the brain’s ability to create new connections, is the essence of the learning process. The self-selection bias is the reason why girls and women decline STEM education, and this selection is influenced by stereotypes and androcentric biases acquired during upbringing and socialization moments. Similarly, social norms and stereotypes disseminated by the media have a significant impact on the internalization of gender roles, occupations, skills, and capabilities by girls and boys (UNESCO, 2019).

Based on the literature review conducted, the indicators in the dimension of Academic Offerings are:. Based on our review of the literature, we identified the following indicators: number of higher education institutions, total number of offered careers, number of careers in science, total enrolment, total female enrolment, total male enrolment, enrolment of women and men in Natural Sciences, enrolment of male and female in Social Sciences, and enrolment of women and men in Health Sciences (Carrillo & Florez, 2023; Del Valle et al., 2012; Ortiz-Ortega & Sánchez, 2017).

ii) Research policies: Twenty-nine percent of the RBP disseminated results regarding the impact of research policies on gender gaps in research. Mexico is the country where the highest number of studies in this field has been conducted, and thus, the equity of gender in research was evaluated in 2012, 2013, and 2015 (Cárdenas Tapia, 2015). With a database that provided gender-specific information, knowledge area, SNI (National System of Researchers) classification, and public universities, it was possible to demonstrate that the participation of female researchers in Mexico is lower than that of men, and they also have a lower level in the SNI in all categories. In more detail, women are not the majority in any of the seven knowledge areas proposed by the SNI. Despite this, from highest to lowest, women are found in 1) biology and chemistry, 2) humanities and behavioural sciences, 3) social and economic sciences, 4) physics, mathematics, and earth sciences, and 5) engineering.

The results confirm the scissor effect or pyramid effect regarding women’s participation in science, as the number of women decreases as their professional career progresses. This situation demands effective policies that encourage and ensure greater presence and participation of women in scientific research in Mexico.

On the other hand, the research by González and Álvarez (2016) aimed to determine the factors that influence the achievement of efficient research formulation in Mexico through a descriptive-correlational study. With a sample of 42 researchers, they identified the following factors influencing the achievement of research formulation: development of analytical thinking, efficient database searching, management of research projects, efficient use of software, data analysis and modelling, innovation, and proper time management.

Pons-Peregort et al. (2013) analyzed gender equality of opportunities in science and technology to understand the career paths of female scientists in Spain. Using a mixed methodology, they identified that equality of opportunities in internal promotion, salary disparities, and work-life balance are challenges that can be overcome with research policies. The low presence of women in scientific professional careers is based on the hegemony of masculine values, which calls for rethinking the achievement of the critical mass needed to bring about structural transformations in the research field, estimated to be 35% (Langford et al., 1995). The authors propose policies that support maternity, childcare services, tax deductions for women who stay at home to care for children because their absence perpetuates women’s inferior position in the labor market and keeps them away from the research field.

In this sense, the indicators that contribute to the definition of the dimension of research policies are entities proposing the policy (State, Ministries, Universities, NGOs), research calls, inclusive financing, composition of the evaluation committee, institutional university policy, incentives and/or recognition, organizational culture (discriminatory biases), types of contracts.

iii) Scientific production: Twenty-four percent of the RPB aims to study the gender gap in scientific production. Luna & Luna (2018) analyzed Mexico’s scientific production recorded in Web of Science from 1900 to 2000 in the fields of exact sciences and engineering to characterize the involvement of female researchers in these fields of study. As these areas have traditionally been associated with men, the research sought to highlight the breakthroughs and achievements of women, considering that they are not the majority in either field. The research used indicators in regard to gender, scientific production and impact, bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis.

The results showed that scientific production increased from the 1980s and 1990s, mainly due to increases in postgraduate studies, the consolidation of research groups, and an increase in national and international scientific collaborations (Luna & Collazo, 2002). Scientific production is concentrated in five institutions and is led by UNAM, which has had female representation for 29 years. Additionally, the co-authorship network of research groups in the physical, chemical, mathematical, and engineering studies emerges in various specialties. The increase in scientific productivity is associated with the growth of female enrolment in higher education in natural sciences (47%) and engineering (25%) (UNESCO, 2019), as well as the creation of new educational institutions since the 1960s and the emergence of women in traditionally male-dominated disciplines.

Continuing with Mexican research, Castro (2018) explores how a group of female researchers breaks paradigms and reshapes the line of women in scientific production. To achieve this, they incorporated qualitative-quantitative methods that included Participatory Action Research (PAR), Véster’s sensitive model, as well as validation indexes and indicators; monitoring and prospecting systems. This allowed them to conclude that women construct knowledge supported by a real and symbolic world.

García (2014) explores the situation of women in the research field in Mexico and discovers that difficulties arise in reconciling academic degrees with motherhood, publishing requires fulfilling the double workload, supervising degree projects requires time and mobility availability, lack of transparency in selection processes, and being evaluated by men negatively impact women’s research.

In Ecuador, Basurto and Ricaurte (2016) used a mixed study to examine the situation of women in the academic field of tourism. The results identified the low representation of women in teaching positions (53%) compared to the percentage of female students in tourism (75%), as well as male leadership in research from participating educational institutions, which are mostly organized by women. The explanatory factors found were difficulty reconciling research roles with motherhood, gender stereotypes, and the social perception of tourism as a feminine disciplinary field.

López and Farías (2022) propose a quantitative analysis of the temporal trajectories of gender parity in scientific publications in Colombia. The country ranks fifth in scientific productivity in Latin America and allocates 0.5% of its GDP to R+D (MINCIENCIAS, 2020). English language proficiency is a disadvantage for Colombian researchers and is closely related to socioeconomic status. Similarly, gender stereotypes in the workplace negatively affect female researchers, leading the authors to assert that it is not simply about increasing the number of women in science and their scientific production, but rather reevaluating how science is done and valued in Colombia, which requires an inclusive and equitable ecosystem.

They highlight that the scientific areas with the highest number of female publications are medical sciences (37.76%), social sciences (35.51%), and natural sciences (29.09%).

Regarding gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, as studied by et al. (2020), it was found that women in science in these countries are under-cited, underpaid, underpromoted, and receive less professional recognition compared to their male counterparts, which puts women at a disadvantage when considering the principle of cumulative advantage, indicating that greater recognition leads to more productivity. They identified factors such as differences in family responsibilities, different patterns in the use of time (women spend more time teaching, advising students, and participating in committees), unequal allocation of resources, gender bias in peer review, gender stratification in disciplines, as well as different patterns in academic collaboration and network building as explanatory factors for the low productivity of female researchers.

In an Italian study conducted by Abramo et al. (2013) using a bibliometric approach, they sought to identify academics’ propensity for collaboration, leading them to conclude that women demonstrate a greater capacity to collaborate in all the analysed forms (intramural, extramural, national, and international), except in international collaboration, where the gap with male counterparts persists.

Among the explanatory factors for productivity gaps in research compared to men, they found that the low percentage of female academics, discrimination affecting job opportunities, biases, difficulty accessing funding, and limitations due to family responsibilities negatively affect female researchers.

Pinho-Gomes et al. (2020) investigate the authorship of women in COVID-19 research by asking “where are the women?” The study shows that women are underrepresented in research, particularly in first and last author positions. These gender biases point to broader inequalities that include authorship in other scientific areas and senior authorship.

Based on the aforementioned, the indicators in the scientific production factor are the following researcher category, number of publications, number of patents, collaborative authorship, type of publication (scientific article, popular article, book chapter, book, collections), segregation (female collaborations), and citability.

iv) Profile. Thirty-seven percent of the RBP presented research results addressing the characteristics, motivations, uniqueness, and distinctive traits of researchers. In this perspective, Prieto de Alizo (2008) provides a theoretical approach to the characteristics of researchers in the humanities field using a phenomenological, hermeneutic, and ethnographic approach with successive interviews until theoretical saturation of categories is reached. The study conducted in Venezuela defined researchers as individuals with an active interest in understanding, learning, deconstructing, and constructing their reality. Beyond defining the characteristics of the group of researchers, the research made it possible to address two other fundamental aspects: the researchers’ conception of conducting research and the context in which research is carried out. This includes aspects such as institutional identification, the academic space where they work, the research-teaching relationship, the appreciation of the profession, administrative strategies in terms of institutional and state policies, as well as quality criteria.

In Spain, Dapía et al. (2019) explored whether science has a gender association among primary school students. Using a gender perspective analysis, they administered the PANA instrument (Project on Attitudes Toward Science in Children and Adolescents) by Pérez and Pro (2005) and the ROSE questionnaire (Schreiner and Sjøberg, 2004) to 378 students. The investigation showed a weak association between gender and science, a more positive attitude towards science among boys, and no gender bias in the desire to become a scientist. This led to the conclusion that there is a need to improve knowledge about the contributions of science and that career aspirations to become scientists in primary education are not associated with gender.

Research conducted in Mexico by Carrillo and Flores (2023), aimed at describing the educational trajectory of women during their professional studies, surveyed 152 women scientists from the National System of Researchers (SNI) selected through non-probability sampling. The study aimed to identify obstacles, challenges, and experiences in the scientific field. Using descriptive quantitative methodology, they found that women face gender-related barriers such as invisibility, lack of recognition for scientific contributions, inequity, stereotypes associated with the care economy, dual burden of work, and difficulties in achieving work-life balance.

In the same vein, they identified variables associated with gender such as the choice of professional career, gender division of labour, sociocultural conditions, social valuation, stereotypes, and gender roles. Regarding the academic trajectory, the variables that influence it are discipline, postgraduate studies, periodic publications, difficulties in entering and advancing in the SNI (lower hierarchy, prolonged stagnation, institutional conditions, as well as symbolic and social gender aspects).

As a result, the main challenges faced by female researchers are related to bureaucracy, in terms of paperwork and procedures, the evaluation system based on quantity rather than quality, funding, lack of job security, competition in what they call the “wolf environment,” excessive workload due to lack of staff, and career advancement understood as continuous training and development processes.

Therefore, the selected indicators for the profile dimension are motivations, existence of a sticky floor, income level, position, geographic location, educational level, career, age, gender, marital status, dependent care burden, rank or category, and recognition.

It is important to mention that this study presented limitations in the number of articles included from databases such as Scopus and Wos, which can be explained by the selection of Boolean expressions used that privileged certain repositories for the search of information. However, this does not affect the value of the information found in this research.

Conclusion

Research focused on gender differences in scientific research has identified a diverse range of determinants or explanatory factors for these gaps. Through a systematic review using the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology, this research identified the most relevant studies and potential factors influencing scientific research for female researchers and academics.

The research facilitated the identification of relevant indicators grouped into four dimensions. The first dimension analysed was academic offerings, considering variables such as the number of educational institutions, offered professional careers, total enrolment, STEM careers, and enrolment of women in natural sciences or STEM. Additional indicators included total female enrolment, female enrolment in natural sciences, female enrolment in social sciences, and female enrolment in health sciences.

The second dimension examined was research policies. The research found that 29% of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) presented results regarding the impact of research policies on gender gaps in research. Mexico stood out as the country with the highest number of studies in this field. Indicators considered in the analysed documents included policy-proposing organizations (government, ministries, universities, NGOs), research calls, inclusive funding, composition of evaluation committees, university institutional policies, incentives/recognition, organizational culture (discriminatory biases), and types of employment contracts.

The third dimension focused on scientific production. The research found that 24% of the RBP aimed to study the gender gap in research production. The selected indicators were researcher category, number of publications, number of patents, collaborative authorship, publication types (scientific articles, popular articles, book chapters, books, collections), gender segregation in collaborations, and citability.

The final dimension addressed the profile of researchers. Approximately 37% of the RBP included studies investigating characteristics, motivations, singularities, and distinctive traits of researchers. Qualitative and quantitative indicators were selected, including motivations, the existence of glass ceiling, income level, position, geographical location, educational level, field of study, age, gender, marital status, dependency burden, rank or category, and recognition.

Systematization processes in the literature review are usually processes whose complexity becomes more evident in the discussion of the results. In particular, because in this case the largest number of documents was concentrated in a single country, Mexico, a situation that leads to conceptual and, above all, contextual biases.

The proposed dimensions of analysis, along with the derived indicators from the conducted research, aim to contribute to the development of explanatory models for the determinants of gender differentials in research. Furthermore, this research aims to help the formulation of effective public policies that address and reduce these gender gaps.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3
VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar GC and Rivera-Lozada O. Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 3
VERSION 3
PUBLISHED 19 Feb 2024
Revised
Views
20
Cite
Reviewer Report 26 Jun 2024
Salomon Huancahuire-Vega, Peruvian Union University UPeU, Lima, Peru 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 20
This is a very interesting work that aims, through a systematic bibliographic analysis, to identify the determinants of the gender gap in scientific research. The work is well structured, written, and presented. I only have a few comments:
1. ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Huancahuire-Vega S. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r215196)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
3
Cite
Reviewer Report 03 May 2024
Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez, UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru 
Approved
VIEWS 3
I have read this latest version very carefully, and as I have commented since the first review, the article is very well structured from a methodological point of view, complying with all the characteristics that a systematic review article should ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248381)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
8
Cite
Reviewer Report 26 Apr 2024
Lorenzo Escot, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 8
I have reviewed the three versions of the article with interest, care and dedicating the time necessary for its rigorous revision. But the authors' response to the problem of sample selection is clearly insufficient. They clearly recognized in their response ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248382)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 22 Jan 2024
Revised
Views
24
Cite
Reviewer Report 12 Feb 2024
Lorenzo Escot, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 24
I have been able to read the authors' response to my comments. I don't think they really answer my questions. 

For example, they have added table 2a with the queries, but they do not show the results ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161374.r239456)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 13 Apr 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru
    13 Apr 2024
    Author Response
    Dear Reviewer
    We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 13 Apr 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru
    13 Apr 2024
    Author Response
    Dear Reviewer
    We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit ... Continue reading
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023
Views
23
Cite
Reviewer Report 18 Dec 2023
Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez, UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru 
Approved
VIEWS 23
The research addresses a very interesting and relevant topic at this time as is the identification of the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide ideas on how to close these gaps.
The dimensions they used to ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r215190)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 22 Jan 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru
    22 Jan 2024
    Author Response
    1. Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of
    ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 22 Jan 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru
    22 Jan 2024
    Author Response
    1. Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of
    ... Continue reading
Views
47
Cite
Reviewer Report 22 Nov 2023
Lorenzo Escot, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 47
The paper provides a systematic review that aims to identify the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide insights on how to close these differences.

The subject is of great interest and relevance. The study identified ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1302 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r217668)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 22 Jan 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru
    22 Jan 2024
    Author Response
    My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 22 Jan 2024
    ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru
    22 Jan 2024
    Author Response
    My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3
VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.