Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis

Scientometrics

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 373-383

  Thelwall, Mike ^a   Barjak, Franz ^b   Kretschmer, Hildrun ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES AND ARTS NORTHWESTERN SWITZERLAND   (Switzerland)

^c ROYAL NETHERLANDS ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^d FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846365204     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.3     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. ABIR-am, P., OUTRAM, D. (1986), Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
2. BAKANIC, V., McPHAIL, C, SIMON, R. J. (1987), The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52 : 631-642.
3. BARABÁSI, A. L., ALBERT, R. (1999), Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 :509-512.
4. BAR-ILAN, J. (2004), A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country - the case of Israel. Scientometrics, 59 (3): 391-1103
5. BAR-ILAN, J. (2005), What do we know about links and linking? A framework for studying links in academic environments. Information Processing & Management, 41 (3): 973-986.
6. BARJAK, F. (2004), The integration of the Internet into informal communication in science. University of Applied Sciences Solothum Discussion Paper No. 2004-W02, Retrieved May 23,2005, from: http://www.fhso.ch/pdf/ publikationen/dp2004-2002.pdf
7. BARJAK, F. (2006, in press), From the "analogue divide" to the "hybrid divide": the internet does not ensure equality of access to information in science. In: C. HINE (Ed.), New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding e-Science. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
8. BARJAK, F., LI, X., TlIELWALL, M. (2005), Which factors explain the web impact of scientists' personal home pages? Presentation at Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations, Retrieved September 9,2005, from: http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=i17&cf=113
9. BARN'ETT, R. C. (1975), Sex differences and age trends in occupational preference and occupational prestige. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22 (1): 35-38.
10. BORDONS, M., MORILLO, F., FERNÁNDEZ, M. T., GÓMEZ, I. (2003), One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometrics, 57 (2): 159-173.
11. BUDD, J. M., CONNAWAY, L. S. (1997), University faculty and networked information: Results of a survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 : 834-852.
12. COHEN, J. (1996), Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 6 (2/3): 41-63.
13. EC (2003), She figures 2003. Women and science - Statistics and indicators. Brussels: European Commission (Retrieved September 9,2005, from:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/she-figures-2003. pdf)
14. ETZKOWITZ, H., KEMELGOR, C, UZZI, B. (2000), Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. FRY, J., TAIJA, S. (2004), The Cultural Shaping of Scholarly Communication: Explaining e-Journal Use within and across Academic Fields. Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting (pp. 20-30).
16. HERRING, S. (1996), Posting in a different voice: gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication. In: P. Mayer (Ed.), Computer Media and Communication: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241-265.
17. HULLMANN, A. (2002), Bibliometric and patent indicators by gender: Is it feasible? Retrieved September 9, 2005, from: http://www.cordis.lu/indicators/ publications.htm
18. INGWERSEN, P. (1998), The calculation of Web Impact Factors. Journal of Documentation, 54 (2): 236-243.
19. KIESLING, S. (2003), Prestige, cultural models, norms & gender. In: J. HOLMES, M. MEYERHOFF(Eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Backwell.
20. KLLING, R., MCKIM, G. (2000), Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (14): 1306-1320.
21. KNORR-CETINA, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
22. KRETSCHMER, H., KRETSCHMER, T., KRETSCHMER, U. (2005a), Visibility of collaboration between immunology institutions on the web including aspects of gender studies. Proceedings of ISSI2005, 750-760.
23. KRETSCHMKR, H., KRETSCHMER, U., KRETSCHMF.R, T. (2005b), Reflection of co-authorship networks in the web: Web hyperlinks versus web visibility rates. Proceedings of the 5th Triple Helix Conference, Turin, It, May 18-21, (CD-ROM).
24. LAFOLLETE, M. (1988), Eyes on the stars: Images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology and Human Values, 13 (3&4) : 262-275.
25. LANK, N. J. (1999). Why are there so few women in science? Nature, Retrieved September 9, 2005, from: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/ womenAwomen-frameset.html
26. LETA, J., LEWISON, G. (2003), The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics, 57 (3): 339-353.
27. LI, X., THELWALL, M., MUSGROVE, P. B., WILKINSON, D. (2003), The relationship between the WIFs or Inlinks of computer science departments in UK and their RAE ratings or research productivities in 2001. Scientometrics, 57 (2): 239-255.
28. MCELHIHNNY, B. (2003), Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In: J. holmes, M. meyerhoef (Eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender, Oxford: Backwell, pp. 21-42.
29. MILLER, H., ARNOLD, J. (2001), Breaking away from grounded identity? Women academics on the Web. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4 (1) : 95-108.
30. MITRA, A., HAZEN, M. D., LAFRANCE, B., ROGAN, R. G. (1999), Faculty use and non-use of electronic mail: Attitudes, expectations and profiles. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (3), Retrieved 24 August, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2004/issue2003/mitra.html
31. NAI.DI, R, LUZI, D., VALENTE, A., PARENTI, I. V. (2004), Scientific and technological performance by gender. In: H. F. MOED (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 299-314.
32. NALDI, F., PARENT!, I. V. (2002), Biosoft sas: Bibliometric and patent indicators by gender: Two feasibility studies (November 2002): Volume 1: Statistics, Volume 2: Methodology. Retrieved September 9,2005, from: http://www.cordis.lu/indicators/publications.htm
33. NENTWICII, M. (2003). Cyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
34. OLDHAM, G., ACIIMAD, S. (1999), Gender mainstreaming in science and technology - a global report. Nature, Retrieved September 9,2005, from: http://www.nature.corn/nature/debatesMomervwomenJrameset.html
35. PARDUE, M.-L., HOPKINS, N., POTTER, M. C, CF.YER, S. (1999), Moving from discrimination at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nature, Retrieved September 9,2005, from: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/women/women- frarneset.html
36. RANDLE, V. (1999), Is the glass ceiling an illusion? Nature, http://wvvw.nature.com/nature/debatesATOmenMonien-frarneset.html
37. ROSSER, S., ZIESENISS, M. (2000), Career issues and laboratory climates: different challenges and oportunities for women engineers and scientists (survey of fiscal year 1997 POWRE awardees). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 6 (2): 95-114.
38. ROUSSEAU, R. (1997), Sitations: an exploratory study. Cybermetrics, 1(1), Retrieved September 9, 2005, from: http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/ articles/v1ip1.html
39. SANDLER, B. R. (1996), The classroom climate: Still a chilly one for women. In: K. B. costello (Ed.), Gendered Voices:Readings from the American Experience, Fort Worth: TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, pp. 359-367.
40. SMITH, A. G. (1999), A tale of two web spaces; comparing sites using Web Impact Factors. Journal of Documentation, 55 (5): 577-592.
41. TANG, R., THELWAU., M. (2003), US academic departmental web-site interlinking in the United States disciplinary differences. Library and Information Science Research, 25 (4): 437-458.
42. TEO, T. S. H. (2001), Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Research: Electronic Networking and Applications and Policy, 11 (2): 125-137.
43. THEIAWALL, M. (2004), Link Analysis: An Information Science Approach. San Diego: Academic Press.
44. THELWALL., M., HARRIES, G. (2004), Do better scholars' Web publications have significantly higher online impact? Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55 (2): 149-159.
45. THELWALL., M., WILKINSON, D. (2003), Graph structure in three national academic Webs: Power laws with anomalies. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (8): 706-712.
46. UNESCO (2003), International Handbook of Universities, 17th ed (International Association of Universities). Bath: Bath Press.
47. WALSH, J. P., KUCKER, S., MALONEY, N., GABBAY, S. (2000), Connecting minds: CMC and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 : 1295-1305.
48. WILKINSON, D., HARRIES, G., THEI.WALL, M., PRICE, E. (2003), Motivations for academic Web site interlinking: Evidence for the Web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science, 29 (1) : 49-56.
49. ZHANG, Y. (2001), Scholarly use of internet-based electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 :628-654.