Erratum: The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research (PLoS ONE (2020) 15:4 (e0230043) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230043);The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research

PLoS ONE

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2020, Pages

  Wu, Cary ^a   Fuller, Sylvia ^b   Shi, Zhilei ^c   Wilkes, Rima ^b  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c ZHONGNAN UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND LAW   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; SEX DIFFERENCE; WRITING; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SEX FACTOR;

AUTHORSHIP; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PUBLICATIONS; PUBLISHING; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 85082732164     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232229     Document Type: Erratum

References (56)

1. Araújo E. B., Araújo N. A., Moreira A. A., Herrmann H. J., & Andrade J. S. Jr (2017). Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men. PloS one, 12(5), e0176791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176791 PMID: 28489872
2. Holman L., & Morandin C. (2018). Researchers preferentially collaborate with same-gendered colleagues across the life sciences. BioRxiv, 345975.
3. Zeng X. H. T., Duch J., Sales-Pardo M., Moreira J. A., Radicchi F., Ribeiro H. V., et al. (2016). Differences in collaboration patterns across discipline, career stage, and gender. PLoS biology, 14(11).
4. Bendels M. H., Müller R., Brueggmann D., & Groneberg D. A. (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PloS One, 13(1), e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136 PMID: 29293499
5. West J. D., Jacquet J., King M. M., Correll S. J., & Bergstrom C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PloS One, 8(7), e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212 PMID: 23894278
6. Gewin V. (2017). Gender bias: Citation lag in astronomy. Nature, 546(7660), 693–693.
7. King M. M., Bergstrom C. T., Correll S. J., Jacquet J., & West J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius, 3, 2378023117738903.
8. Sandström U. (2009a). Combining curriculum vitae and bibliometric analysis: mobility, gender and research performance. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 135–142.
9. Sandström U. (2009b). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341–349.
10. Hengel, E. (2017). Publishing while female. Technical report, University of Liverpool.
11. Conley D., & Stadmark J. (2012). A call to commission more women writers. Nature 488–590 https://doi.org/10.1038/488590a PMID: 22932370
12. Holman L., Stuart-Fox D., & Hauser C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?. PLoS Biology, 16(4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 PMID: 29672508
13. Lerback J., and Hanson B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541(7638), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a PMID: 28128272
14. Fox C. W., Burns C. S., & Meyer J. A. (2016). Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 140–153.
15. Helmer M., Schottdorf M., Neef A., & Battaglia D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife, 6, e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718 PMID: 28322725
16. Beaulieu E., Boydstun A. E., Brown N. E., Dionne K. Y., Gillespie A., Klar S., et al. (2017). Women Also Know Stuff: Meta-Level Mentoring to Battle Gender Bias in Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(3), 779–783.
17. Shor E., van de Rijt A., Miltsov A., Kulkarni V., & Skiena S. (2015). A Paper ceiling: Explaining the persistent underrepresentation of women in printed news. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 960–984.
18. Xie Y., & Shauman K. A. (2003). Women in Science. Harvard University Press.
19. Van Arensbergen P., van der Weijden I., & Van den Besselaar P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?. Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-012-0712-y PMID: 23162173
20. Shen H. (2013). Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/495022a PMID: 23467149
21. Van Den Besselaar P., & Sandström U. (2016). Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics, 106(1), 143–162.
22. Eagly A. H., & Miller D. I. (2016). Scientific eminence: Where are the women? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 899–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616663918 PMID: 27899733
23. Van den Besselaar P., & Sandström U. (2017). Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PloS One, 12(8), e0183301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183301 PMID: 28841666
24. Ceci S. J. (2018). Women in academic science: Experimental findings from hiring studies. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 22–41.
25. Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabasi, A. L. (2019). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04103.
26. Williams W. M., & Ceci S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360–5365.
27. Schekman R. (2007). Introducing PNAS online letters to the editor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (42), 16393–16393; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709174104
28. Thomas E. G., Jayabalasingham B., Collins T., Geertzen J., Bui C., & Dominici F. (2019). Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals. JAMA network open, 2(10), e1913682–e1913682. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13682 PMID: 31642926
29. Loder E., & Burch R. (2019). Underrepresentation of Women Among Authors of Invited Commentaries in Medical Journals—Where Are the Female Editorialists?. JAMA network open, 2(10), e1913665–e1913665. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13665 PMID: 31642923
30. Kallio Kirsi Pauliina, and Metzger Jonathan. (2018). Alternative’journal publishing and the economy of academic prestige. Fennia-International Journal of Geography, 196(1), 1–3.
31. Ozler, Berk. (2011) Working Papers are not Working. Accessed on November 6, 2019 from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/working-papers-are-not-working
32. Severin Anna, Egger Matthias, Martin Paul Eve, and Daniel Hürlimann. (2018). Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 7.
33. Collyer Fran M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66 (1), 56–73.
34. Byrnes J. P., Miller D. C., & Schafer W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367.
35. Croson R., & Buchan N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.
36. Rudman L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.629 PMID: 9523410
37. Rudman L. A., & Goodwin S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494 PMID: 15491274
38. Harris C.R., Jenkins M. & Glaser D. 2008. “Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do women Take Fewer Risks than Men?”. Judgement and Decision-Making, 1(1), 48–63.
39. Burgess D., and Borgida E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665.
40. Eagly A. H., and Karau S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573 PMID: 12088246
41. McLaughlin H., Uggen C., & Blackstone A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122412451728 PMID: 23329855
42. Quadlin, N. (2018). The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic Performance in Hiring. American Sociological Review online first https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418762291
43. Rudman L. A., & Phelan J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.
44. Roscigno V. J., Garcia L. M., Bobbitt-Zeher D. (2007). Social closure and processes of race/sex employment discrimination. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609, 16–48.
45. Radicchi F. (2012). In science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 2, 815. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00815 PMID: 23139864
46. Marsh Abigail A. (2019). The caring continuum: Evolved hormonal and proximal mechanisms explain prosocial and antisocial extremes. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-psych-010418-103010 PMID: 30231001
47. Fitzgerald Tanya. (2018). Looking Good and Being Good: Women Leaders in Australian Universities. Education Sciences 8 (2), 54.
48. Poole Marilyn, and Isaacs Dallas. (1997). Caring: A gendered concept. In Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(4), 529–536. Pergamon.
49. Duffy M. A. (2017). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 7 (21), 8876–8887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435 PMID: 29152184
50. Bhandari M., Guyatt G. H., Kulkarni A. V., Devereaux P. J., Leece P., Bajammal S., et al. (2014). Perceptions of authors’ contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04. 006 PMID: 24973824
51. Bhandari M., Einhorn T. A., Swiontkowski M. F., & Heckman J. D. (2003). Who did what?:(Mis) perceptions about authors’ contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. JBJS, 85(8), 1605–1609.
52. Wren J. D., Kozak K. Z., Johnson K. R., Deakyne S. J., Schilling L. M., & Dellavalle R. P. (2007). The write position. EMBO reports, 8(11), 988–991. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401095 PMID: 17972896
53. Fox C. W., Ritchey J. P., & Paine C. T. (2018). Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and Evolution, 8(23), 11492–11507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4584 PMID: 30598751
54. Berdahl J. L., Cooper M., Glick P., Livingston R. W., & Williams J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–448.
55. Kaya A., Iwamoto D. K., Brady J., Clinton L., & Grivel M. (2019). The role of masculine norms and gender role conflict on prospective well-being among men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(1), 142.
56. Weedon K.A., Thebaud S., & Gelbgiser D. (2017). Degrees of Difference: Gender Segregation of U.S. Doctorates by Field and Program Prestige. Sociological Science https://doi.org/10.15195/v4.a6