Gender differences in conference presentations: A consequence of self-selection?

PeerJ

Volumn 2014, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Jones, Therésa M ^a   Fanson, Kerry V ^b   Lanfear, Rob ^c   Symonds, Matthew R E ^b   Higgie, Megan ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Academic levels; Conference presentations; Evolutionary biology; Gender and science, Women in science; Gender difference; Leaky pipeline; Matilda effect; Scientific visibility; Talk preference

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; SEX DIFFERENCE; STUDENT;

EID: 84910071650     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21678359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.627     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Agresti A. 2013. Categorical data analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley & Son.
2. Barjak F. 2006. The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(10):1350-1367 DOI 10.1002/asi.20454.
3. Born MP, Taris TW. 2010. The impact of the wording of employment advertisements on students' inclination to apply for a Job. Journal of Social Psychology 150(5):485-502 DOI 10.1080/00224540903365422.
4. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions. Scientometrics 63(2):297-320 DOI 10.1007/s11192-005-0214-2.
5. Casadevall A, Handelsman J. 2014. The presence of female conveners correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. mBio 5(1):e00846-13 DOI 10.1128/mBio.00846-13.
6. Conley D, Stadmark J. 2012. Gender matters: a call to commission more women writers. Nature 488(7413):590 DOI 10.1038/488590a.
7. Damschen EI, Rosenfeld KM, Wyer M, Murphy-Medley D, Wentworth TR, Haddad NM. 2005. Visibility matters: increasing knowledge of women's contributions to ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(4):212-219 DOI 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0212:VMIKOW]2.0.CO;2.
8. Davenport E, Snyder H. 1995.Who cites women?Whomdo women cite? An exploration of gender and scholarly citation in sociology. Journal of Documentation 51(4):404-410 DOI 10.1108/eb026958.
9. Engqvist L, Frommen JG. 2008. Double-blind peer review and gender publication bias. Animal Behaviour 76:E1-E2 DOI 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.023.
10. Faulkner W. 2009. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies 1(3):169-189 DOI 10.1080/19378620903225059.
11. Ferber MA, Brun M. 2011. The gender gap in citations: does it persist? Feminist Economics 17(1):151-158 DOI 10.1080/13545701.2010.541857.
12. Hill C, Corbett C, St Rose A. 2010. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington: AAUW.
13. Isbell LA, Young TP, Harcourt AH. 2012. Stag parties linger: continued gender bias in a female-rich scientific discipline. PLoS ONE 7(11):e49682 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049682.
14. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M. 2013. The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication 35(5):603-625 DOI 10.1177/1075547012472684.
15. Kretschmer H, Kundra R, Beaver DD, Kretschmer T. 2012. Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics 93(1):135-150 DOI 10.1007/s11192-012-0661-5.
16. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. 2013. Global gender disparities in science. Nature 211:211-213 DOI 10.1038/504211a.
17. Leaper C, Robnett RD. 2011. Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren't they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(1):129-142 DOI 10.1177/0361684310392728.
18. Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. 2012. The Matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science 42(2):307-320 DOI 10.1177/0306312711435830.
19. Maliniak D, Powers R, Walter BF. 2013. The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization 67:889-922 DOI 10.1017/S0020818313000209.
20. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(41):16474-16479 DOI 10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
21. Pell AN. 1996. Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia. Journal of Animal Science 74(11):2843-2848.
22. Rossiter MW. 1993. TheMatthew-Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science 23(2):325-341 DOI 10.1177/030631293023002004.
23. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A. 2006. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 296:1103-1115 DOI 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103.
24. Schroeder J, Dugdale HL, Radersma R, Hinsch M, Buehler DM, Saul J, Porter L, Liker A, De Cauwer I, Johnson PJ, Santure AW, Griffin AS, Bolund E, Ross L, Webb TJ, Feulner PGD, Winney I, Szulkin M, Komdeur J, Versteegh MA, Hemelrijk CK, Svensson EI, Edwards H, Karlsson M, West SA, Barrett ELB, Richardson DS, Van den Brink V, Wimpenny JH, Ellwood SA, Rees M, Matson KD, Charmantier A, dos Remedios N, Schneider NA, Teplitsky C, Laurance WF, Butlin RK, Horrocks NPC. 2013. Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26(9):2063-2069 DOI 10.1111/jeb.12198.
25. Symonds MRE, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA. 2006. Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE 1(1):e127 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0000127.
26. Thelwall M, Barjak F, Kretschmer H. 2006. Web links and gender in science: an exploratory analysis. Scientometrics 67(3):373-383 DOI 10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.3.
27. Tinsley CH, Cheldelin SI, Schneider AK, Amanatullah ET. 2009. Women at the bargaining table: pitfalls and prospects. Negotiation Journal 25(2):233-248 DOI 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00222.x.
28. Wenneras C, Wold A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387(6631):341-343 DOI 10.1038/387341a0.
29. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, BergstromCT. 2012. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. ArXiv preprint. arXiv:1211.1759.
30. Winkler JA, Tucker D, Smith AK. 1996. Salaries and advancement of women faculty in atmospheric science: some reasons for concern. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77(3):473-490 DOI 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0473:SAAOWF>2.0.CO;2.
31. Winslow S. 2010. Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender & Society 24(6):769-793 DOI 10.1177/0891243210386728.
32. Xie Y, Shauman KA. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 63(6):847-870 DOI 10.2307/2657505.