Erratum: Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology (PLoS ONE (2019) 14: 6 (e0218598) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218598);Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology

PLoS ONE

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2019, Pages

  Salerno, Patricia E ^a,b   Páez Vacas, Mónica ^c   Guayasamin, Juan M ^c,d   Stynoski, Jennifer L ^a,e  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL ECUADOR   (Ecuador)

^c UNIVERSIDAD TECNOLÓGICA INDOAMÉRICA   (Ecuador)

^d UNIVERSIDAD SAN FRANCISCO DE QUITO   (Ecuador)

^e UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA   (Costa Rica)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; MALE; PIPELINE; SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA; STEREOTYPY; WRITING; ZOOLOGY; LEADERSHIP; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PUBLICATION; SEXISM;

AUTHORSHIP; ECOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEADERSHIP; MALE; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PERSONNEL SELECTION; SEXISM; WORKFORCE; ZOOLOGY;

EID: 85067494216     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233803     Document Type: Erratum

References (57)

1. Monroe K, Ozyurt S, Wrigley T, Alexander A. Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics. 2008; 6:215–233.2.
2. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM. Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2014; 15:75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236 PMID: 26172066
3. Pell AN. Fixing the leaky pipeline: Women scientists in academia. J Anim Sci. 1996; 74:2843–2848. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x PMID: 8923199
4. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212 PMID: 23894278
5. Bonham KS, Stefan MI. Women are underrepresented in computational biology: An analysis of the scholarly literature in biology, computer science, and computational biology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017; 13:e1005134. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005134 PMID: 29023441
6. Damschen EI, Resenfeld KM, Wyer M, Murphy-Medley D, Wentworth TR, Haddad NM. Visibility matters: Increasing knowledge of women’s contributions to ecology. Front Ecol Environ. 2005; 3:212–219.
7. Farr CM, Bombaci SP, Gallo T, Manan AM, Riedl HL, Stinson LT, et al. Addressing the gender gap in distinguished speakers and professional ecology conferences. BioScience. 2017; 67:464–468.
8. Duffy MA. Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecol Evol. 2017; 7:8876–8887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435 PMID: 29152184
9. Grogan KE. How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace. Nature Ecology and Evolution 26 Nov 2018; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0747-4
10. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010; 330:686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1193147 PMID: 20929725
11. Campbell LG, Mehtani S, Dozier ME, Rinehart J. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e79147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147PMID: 24205372
12. Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 2013; 504:211–213. PMID: 24350369
13. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol.2008; 23:4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 PMID: 17963996
14. Kaplan K. Self-doubt plagues female astronomers. Nature. 2010; 463:574.
15. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109:16474–16479.
16. Steele CM. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am Psychol.1997; 52:613–629. PMID: 9174398
17. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol.1999; 35:4–28.
18. Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J Pers Soc Psychol.2009; 97:1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239 PMID: 19968418
19. Beasley MA, Fischer MJ. Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012; 15:427–448.
20. MacNell L, Driscoll A, Hunt AN. What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innov High Educ. 2014; 40:291–303.
21. Grunspan DZ, Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Wiggins BL, Crowe AJ, Goodreau SM. Males underestimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0148405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148405 PMID: 26863320
22. Rossiter MW. The Mathew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993; 23:325–341.
23. Martinez ED, Botos J, Dohoney KM, Geiman TM, Kolla SS, Olivera A, et al. Falling off the academic bandwagon: Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep. 2007; 8:977–981. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401110 PMID: 17972894
24. Clancy KBH, Nelson RG, Rutherford JN, Hinde K. Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0102172 PMID: 25028932
25. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Jones R, Perumalswami CR, Ubel P, Stewart A. Sexual harassment and discrimination experiences of academic medical faculty. J Am Med Assoc.2016; 315:2120–2121.
26. Nelson DJ. A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities. 2005. Norman, OK.Available from: http://chem.ou.edu/~djn/diversity/briefings/Diversity%20Report%20Final.pdf.
27. Martin LJ. Where are the women in ecology? Front Ecol Environ. 2012; 10:177–178.
28. McGuire KL, Primack RB, Losos EC. Dramatic improvements and persistent challenges for women ecologists. BioScience. 2012; 62:189–196.
29. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. The gender gap in NIH applications. Science 2008; 322:1472–1474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165878 PMID: 19056961
30. Costas R, Bordons M. Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics 2011; 88:145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z PMID: 21765565
31. Duch J, Zeng XHT, Sales-Pardo M, RAdicchi F, Otis S, Woodruff TK, Amaral LAN. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE 2012; 7:12:e51332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332 PMID: 23251502
32. Fox CW, Paine CET. Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals. Ecology and Evolution 2016; 6:7717–7726. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2505 PMID: 30128123
33. Lariviere V, Desrochers N, Macaluso B, Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A, Sugimoto CR. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science 2016; 46: 3:417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046 PMID: 28948891
34. Fox CW, Ritchey JP, Paine CET. Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and Evolution 2018; https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4584
35. Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, Resh VH, Krauss J. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol. 2007; 5:e18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio. 0050018 PMID: 17227141
36. Sugimoto CR, Ni C, Lariviere V. On the relationship between gender disparities in scholarly communication and country-level development indicators. Science and Public Policy 2015; 42:6:789–810.
37. Htun M. Inclusion Without Representation in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
38. Krook ML, Zetterberg P. Gender Quotas and Women’s Representation: New Directions in Research. Oxon, UK: Routledge; 2016.
39. Valentova JV, Otta E, Silva ML, McElligott AG. Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science. PeerJ. 2017; 5:e4000 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4000 PMID: 29302384
40. Weeden KA, Thébaud S, Gelbgiser D. Degrees of difference: Gender segregation of US doctorates by field and program prestige. Sociol Sci.2017; 4:123–150.
41. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2015. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
42. Monroe K. Tougher standards for female scholars? The psychology behind them and policies to eliminate them. International Studies Perspectives. 2013; 14:476–484.
43. Hengel E. Publishing while female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. Cambridge Working Paper Economics.2017; 1753:1–76. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17548
44. Sidhu R, Rajashekhar P, Lavin VL, Parry J, Attwood J, Holdcroft A, Sanders DS. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: A study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. J R Soc Med. 2009; 102:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2009.080378 PMID: 19679736
45. Lockwood P. "Someone like me can be successful": Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychol Women Q. 2006; 30:36–46.
46. Drury BJ, Siy JO, Cheryan S. When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry. 2011; 22:265–269.
47. Downing RA, Crosby FJ, Blake-Beard S. The perceived importance of developmental relationships on women undergraduates’ pursuit of science. Psychol Women Q. 2005; 29:419–426.
48. Lubienski ST, Miller EK, Saclarides ES. Sex differences in doctoral student publication rates. Educ Res. 2017; 47:76–81.
49. Espin J, Palmas S, Carrasco-Rueda F, Riemer K, Allen PE, Berkebile N, et al. A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15:e2002760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002760 PMID: 29232375
50. Guzmán-Valenzuela C. Global trends and their impact on Latin America: The role of the state and the private sector in the provision of higher education. Centre for Global Higher Education. 2016; 4. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/breaking_news_files/globaltrends-and-their-impact-on-latin-america.pdf.
51. Manlove KR, Belou RM. Authors and editors assort on gender and geography in high-rank ecological publications. PLoS ONE 2018; 13:2:e0192481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192481 PMID: 29420647
52. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112:13201–13206.
53. Ballen CJ, Salehi A, Cotner S. Exams disadvantage women in introductory biology. PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0186419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186419 PMID: 29049334
54. Ben-Zeev AB, Paluy Y, Milless KL, Goldstein EJ, Wallace L, Márquez-Magaña L, et al.’Speaking truth’ protects underrepresented minorities’ intellectual performance and safety in STEM. Educ Sci. 2017; 7:65.
55. Ballen CJ, Wieman C, Salehi S, Searle JB, Zamudio KR. Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2017; 16:ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344 PMID: 29054921
56. Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T. Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Sci Educ.2004; 88:493–534.
57. Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss TL, Vanderford NL. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36:282–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089 PMID: 29509732