Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gender Disparities in Awards to Neuroscience Researchers

Gender Disparities in Awards to Neuroscience Researchers Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 4–11 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000069 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE David E. Melnikoff Yale University Virginia V. Valian CUNY Graduate Center ABSTRACT Women in academia receive fewer prestigious awards than their male counterparts. Why this gender gap emerges, however, remains poorly understood. Thus, we tested multiple hypotheses about the proximate cause of the gender gap in award prestige. Our findings suggest that the gender gap in award prestige may emerge in part from gender schemas that portray women as warmer and less competent than men. Specifically, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that gender schemas lead to women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers, which in turn results in more prestigious awards for men than for women. Additionally, our results suggest that gender disparities in awards and citations may reinforce each other. Practical implications for promoting gender equality in academic awards are discussed. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Women in academia receive fewer prestigious awards than their male counterparts. This gender gap may emerge purely from structural factors (e.g., gender differences in time spent in academia, institutional prestige, and academic perfor- mance), or from a combination of structural and psychological factors (e.g., gender schemas). To test these competing predictions, we assessed the independent contribution of year of degree, institutional prestige (a composite of prestige of PhD school and current affiliation), academic performance (total publications, total cites, and h-index), and gender to the prestige of awards earned by male (N  298) and female (N  134) academic neuroscientists. Award prestige was determined by an independent set of neuroscientists. Men earned more prestigious awards than women after controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total publications. But after controlling for total citations or h-index, no gender difference appeared. Mediation analyses revealed that the gender disparity in awards was mediated by a gender difference in total cites and h-index. There was a reciprocal effect as well, in that the gender disparity in total cites and h-index was partially mediated by awards. These results point to an indirect path by which psychological factors may create gender disparities in academic awards: Gender schemas may lead to women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers, resulting in more prestigious awards for men than for women. Additionally, our results suggest that gender disparities in awards and citations may reinforce each other. Practical implications for promoting gender equality in academic awards are discussed. Keywords: gender bias, gender inequality, award, prestige, neuroscience Data repository: https://osf.io/4jefy/ This article was published November 25, 2019. David E. Melnikoff, Department of Psychology, Yale University; Virginia V. Valian, Department of Psychology, Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (Award 0123609), the National Institutes of Health (Grant GM088530), and the Sloan Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. We thank Nancy Kanwisher and Paul Rozin for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. The authors have made available for use by others the data that underlie the analyses presented in this article (see Melnikoff, 2019), thus allowing replication and potential extensions of this work by qualified researchers. Next users are obligated to involve the data originators in their publication plans, if the originators so desire. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David E. Melnikoff, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: david.melnikoff@yale.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 5 Women in academia receive less recognition for their work com- implicit gender schemas (e.g., Heilman, 2001; Heilman et al., 2015; pared to men. Controlling for representation in their field, women give Valian, 1998). The presence of women on a colloquium, awards, or fewer invited colloquia at universities (Nittrouer et al., 2018) and are organizing committee might counter such schemas by highlighting underrepresented among invited presenters at conferences (for assis- women’s competence. And women do receive more awards when tant and associate professors in social psychology, see Johnson, committees include women (Casadevall & Handelsman, 2014; Klein Smith, & Wang, 2017; for evolutionary biology, see Schroeder et al., et al., 2017; Lincoln et al., 2012; Nittrouer et al., 2018; Sardelis & 2013). Women also receive fewer prestigious awards from profes- Drew, 2016). sional academic societies in a range of fields (Lincoln, Pincus, Koster, In addition to a direct path from gender schemas to gender dispar- & Leboy, 2012; Popejoy & Leboy, 2012; Silver et al., 2018). ities in awards, multiple indirect paths are possible. One indirect path What produces the gender gap in recognition for academic achieve- runs through productivity: The gender schema of women as more ment? The disparity could emerge from structural factors, psycholog- nurturant and communal than men may lead people to request more ical factors, or both (see Heilman, Manzi, & Braun, 2015; Jones, departmental service of women—an imbalance which would be ex- Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017; Stewart & Valian, 2018; pected to subtract from women’s research productivity. Consistent Valian, 1998), but it has been difficult to disambiguate these compet- with this, women are asked to perform, and do perform, dispropor- ing possibilities. Overcoming this barrier is critical: The gender gap is tionately more departmental service than men and produce fewer a prima facie challenge to academia as meritocratic, and may discour- publications (Jones et al., 2017; O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, age aspiring women from continuing in their field. To address the Waugaman, & Jackson, 2017; Valian, 1998; van Arensbergen, van der theoretical and practical issues posed by gender differences in aca- Weijden, & van den Besselaar, 2012). demic achievement, we take as a test case gender differences in A second indirect path by which gender schemas may influence awards to faculty in neuroscience—one of the fastest growing disci- awards runs though citations: The gender schema of women as less plines in science. competent than men may result in women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers. Women may in turn receive fewer pres- tigious awards than men, because citations reflect norms about whose Possible Reasons for Gender Disparities in Awards work is important (MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 2018). In line with this, women are cited less than men, independent of the quality of Structural Factors their work and even when they publish in high-impact journals (Ben- dels, Müller, Brueggmann, & Groneberg, 2018; Bornmann, Schier, Gender disparities in awards may emerge from gender differences Marx, & Daniel, 2012; Dion, Sumner, & Mitchell, 2018; Larivière, in job placement. Women are less concentrated than men in high- Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto, 2013; Maliniak, Powers, & Walter, prestige institutions, where resources to support research are exten- 2013; but see Lynn, Noonan, Sauder, & Andersson, 2019, for a report sive, teaching occupies less time, institutional rewards are more of equal citations of men and women). Relatedly, women cite them- directed at scholarship than teaching, and graduate students are better selves markedly less than men self-cite (King, Bergstrom, Correll, prepared (Stewart & Valian, 2018; Xie & Shauman, 1998). Thus, Jacquet, & West, 2017). Those data suggest that one problem is how gender disparities in placement may yield gender disparities in pro- women’s performance is perceived, rather than their actual perfor- ductivity, which may in turn lead to gender disparities in awards mance. (Duch et al., 2012; Xie & Shauman, 1998). A third indirect path by which gender schemas may influence Beyond job placement, structural factors that may lead to gender awards runs through measures like the h-index. A necessary conse- disparities in awards include demographic inertia and homophily. quence of fewer publications and fewer citations is a smaller h-index, There are more older men than older women in most academic fields, where h is the number of papers having received that number of and awards tend to go to older people. Thus, one would expect fewer citations or more. (An h of 30 means the author has 30 papers that women than men to receive awards on the basis of age alone. With have been cited at least 30 times.) In psychology, to give one example, respect to homophily, men’s networks may include fewer women than women have a lower h-index than men (Geraci, Balsis, & Busch, women’s networks do; because men have more awards and are likely 2015). to nominate people they know, their homophily will result in propor- tionally more nominations of men (Brashears, Hoagland, & Quintane, State of the Evidence 2016; Sandström & Hällsten, 2008). Finally, there may be a reciprocal influence between awards and Are gender disparities in awards due to structural factors, psycho- citations: Women’s papers may receive fewer citations in part because logical factors, or both? The answer to this question is unclear, as few they have fewer awards. Winning a Howard Hughes Medical Inves- studies have examined gender disparities in awards while controlling tigator Award, for example, is associated with a subsequent small but for other plausible variables that would lead to awards. Some avail- significant increase in citations to work published before the award able evidence, however, suggests that psychological factors may play was bestowed (Azoulay, Stuart, & Wang, 2014). Thus, a failure to an important role. For instance, King, Angoff, Forrest, and Justice receive an early award that could draw attention to one’s work can (2018) estimated the independent contributions of multiple factors to result in fewer citations to that work, in turn affecting the likelihood the receipt of awards by senior medical school students at Yale of later awards. University, all of whom must write a research paper in their final year (King et al., 2018). Over a 13-year period, from 2003 to 2015, equal numbers of men and women submitted senior papers, equal numbers Psychological Factors of men and women were nominated for awards for those papers, and Gender disparities in awards may also emerge from the tendency to equal numbers of men and women overall received awards. Only judge women as less competent and more nurturant and communal about 5% of the 1,000 papers received highest honors. Here, women than men in professional settings, leading directly to gender disparities were underrepresented, receiving slightly less than a third of highest in awards (Jones et al., 2017; Valian, 1998). Such judgments need not honors. Thus, although women received half of all awards, they were reflect conscious attitudes toward women, but instead could reflect a minority of the most selective awards. Even after controlling for This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 6 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN factors that influenced awards, such as type of laboratory, mentor The presenter index on the Society for Neuroscience website al- experience with successful students, and type of research (experimen- lowed us to identify 5,726 unique first plus last authors with posters tal vs. clinical), women were approximately half as likely as men to accepted in the Human Behavior and Cognition category at the annual receive the highest honor. As in a 1997 Swedish study of postdoctoral Society for Neuroscience conference between 2003 and 2011. Of applicant success (Wennerås & Wold, 1997), the awards committee those authors, 1,054 (18%) were tenure-track (or tenured) faculty gave better scores to men than women, especially at the level neces- affiliated with a U.S. college or university who had earned their PhD sary for highest honors. In light of these findings, we hypothesize that in the year 1960 or later. Of those 1,054 eligible presenters, 532 (50%) gender disparities in awards to faculty in neuroscience are attributable posted their CV online. One hundred individuals who were randomly in part to psychological factors—namely, direct or indirect effects of selected and asked to rate the prestige of awards were excluded from gender schemas. analyses, leaving a total of 432 individuals. We determined each individual’s gender based on pictures and, when available, gender-specific pronouns found in their bios. We Present Study referenced the presenter index on the Society for Neuroscience web- The present study estimates the independent contributions of struc- site to identify the number of times they were the first or last author tural and psychological factors to gender disparities in awards to of a presented poster between 2003 and 2011. neuroscience faculty. To maximize the likelihood that we examined only active researchers who would be eligible for awards, we re- Curriculum Vitae (CV) Data Collection stricted our sample to individuals who were first or last authors on an accepted poster during an eight-year period at meetings of the Society We collected the following data from eligible participants’ public for Neuroscience, were tenured or tenure-track faculty, and had a CVs: i) year of PhD (range from 1960 to 2009); ii) PhD-granting curriculum vitae (CV) posted online (87% of tenured and tenure-track institution; iii) institution where they were first employed; iv) current faculty had their CV posted online, which did not vary as a function institution where employed; v) names of awards and prizes; and vi) of gender, p  .739). date of most recent CV update. The restriction to first or last author helped ensure that the person We used each researcher’s most recent publication date as their most responsible for the research (the first author) was included, as most recent CV update in the absence of a note specifying when they was the likely person in whose lab the research was conducted (the made their last update. We coded the world ranking for each of the last author). Although we cannot be sure that research was conducted three institutions (PhD institution, first job, and current employer) in the lab of the last author, or that the first author was responsible for according to the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities the research, we reasoned that including only first and last authors (Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, 2011). The lower the rank the more minimized our likelihood of including nonactive neuroscientists in our prestigious the institution: Ranks 1–10 received a score of 8, ranks analyses. The restriction to tenure-line individuals ensured that only 11–20 received a score of 7, ranks 21–50 received a score of 6, ranks people with full-time positions in academia—those most likely to be 51–100 received a score of 5, ranks 101–200 received a score of 4, candidates for awards—were included. The restriction to individuals 201–300 received a score of 3, 301–400 received a rank of 2, and with online CVs was partly a matter of convenience and partly a way ranks 401–500 received a score of 1. Because institution ranks of PhD of choosing a sample that was professionally active. institution, first job, and current employer were highly intercorrelated We also limited our sample to people who specialized in the same (all rs  .8), we computed their mean to create a single composite subfield. Different subfields have different percentages of men and institution score. Institution score could thus range from 1 to 8. women, have different norms with respect to total research output and Individuals at unranked schools (N  18) were excluded. citations, and are eligible for different awards. We thus examined only neuroscientists whose poster was in the Human Behavior and Cogni- Publication Data tion poster session, which we selected because it was among the largest poster sessions and thus allowed us to maximize our sample We collected the following publication data for each author using size. the software program Publish or Perish (http://www.harzing.com/ We include measures for year of degree, prestige of degree-granting pop.htm): number of total publications, number of total citations, and and present institution, number of publications, number of citations to h-index. We log transformed all publication data to normalize their publications, and gender to determine whether men and women re- distributions. ceive equal awards. However flawed publications and citations are as Although it is one of the most reliable sources of publication data, measures of performance, they are commonly used in determinations Publish or Perish searches sometimes include errors. The program of hiring and promotion. fails to distinguish between authors with the same initials and last name and sometimes lists alternate titles as separate publications (e.g., The brain on drugs vs. brain on drugs, The), which inflates an author’s Method publication total and possibly dilutes their highest cite total. To avoid these issues, we manually removed all erroneous author inclusions by Participants identifying those that corresponded to publication titles clearly incom- We analyzed CVs and publication data from male (n  298) and patible with the target author’s line of research. We also aggregated female (n  134) academic neuroscientists. To be included in our data for all publications with alternate spellings. sample, researchers must have met the following criteria: i) position as first or last author of a poster accepted for presentation in the Human Award Score Behavior and Cognition category at the Society for Neuroscience conferences between 2003 and 2011; ii) status as tenure-track or We identified all major achievement-based awards and prizes for tenured faculty member at a U.S. college or university during the which neuroscientists specializing in human behavior and cognition same year at least one of their posters was accepted; iii) PhD degree are eligible (N  42, of which we used 30; see Appendix for full list). in the year 1960 or later; and iv) availability of an online CV. We excluded awards if they were not primarily given for research This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 7 excellence and awards named after women (Janet T. Spence, Janet Table 2 Rosenberg Trubatch, Mika Salpeter). (We excluded awards named Correlations after women in case awards committees view these as more “appro- Factor 1 2 3456 priate” for women scientists. However, results did not differ if we included awards named after women.) 1. Gender — — ———— ** The total amount of prestige that awards confer on an individual 2. Degree year .16 — ———— *** 3. Institution score .30 .05 ———— scientist is a joint function of the number of awards that the scientist *** *** * 4. Total publications .32 .52 .10 ——— has and their quality. To compute a total award score for each scientist *** *** *** ** 5. Total citations .34 .43 .19 .50 —— in our sample, it was necessary to measure the prestige of each award. *** *** ** ** ** 6. h-Index .43 .61 .14 .72 .62 — *** *** * *** *** *** We emailed 100 randomly selected members of our sample and asked 7. Award score .21 .34 .11 .22 .31 .35 them to complete an online questionnaire designed to assess the Note. Gender is scored 0 for female and 1 for male. prestige of awards and prizes in neuroscience. (These individuals were * ** *** p  .05. p  .01. p  .001. excluded from all subsequent analyses.) For each award and prize included in our sample, respondents evaluated prestige on a 9-point Given the pattern of correlations, the relationship between gender scale (1  not at all prestigious;9  extremely prestigious). Interrater and award score could be due to gender differences in year of degree, reliability was good among the 52 neuroscientists (36% female) who current institution ranking, total publications, total cites, h-index, or completed the survey ( .84). We assigned each award a prestige some combination thereof. To test those possibilities, we performed score equal to its mean rating (all of which were unmoderated by the three regressions (see Table 3). Models regressed gender, year of gender of the rater), and assigned each participant an award score degree, current institution ranking, and one of the three performance equal to the sum of their awards’ prestige scores. metrics (total publications, total cites, or h-index) on award score. All Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all variables. The awards three models accounted for a significant amount of variance in award scores are for all awards, including those named after women. score. Model 1’s performance metric was total publications (R  .15, Results F(4, 409)  17.78, p  .001). Gender had a significant effect on As shown in Table 1, which lists the descriptive statistics for all award score (b  6.74, SE  2.75, p  .014), accounting for 1.3% of variables, the ranges of scores for all variables except gender were the variance. Specifically, men had higher award scores than women, large. For example, award scores ranged from 0 to 77; year of degree over and above a marginal effect of institution prestige, (b  1.34, ranged from 1960 to 2009; institution score ranged from 1.67 to 8; SE  .74, p  .073) and the significant effect of year of degree (b total publications ranged from 10 to 946; total cites ranged from 372 .88, SE  .15, p  .001). Total publications were not significant to 70,137; and h-indexes ranged from 5 to 106. (b  .61, SE  1.67, p  .716). Correlations among all variables of interest are displayed in Table Model 2’s performance metric was total citations (R  .17, F(4, 2. Being male (rather than female) was associated with an earlier date 409)  21.04, p  .001). In this model, only total citations (b  4.44, of PhD attainment, r(432) .16, p  .001, working at higher SE  1.32, p  .001) and year of degree (b .70, SE  .14, p ranked universities, r(432)  .30, p  .001, having more total .001) were significant predictors of award score. Neither institution publications, r(432)  .323, p  .001, total cites, r(432)  .34, p  score (b  1.40, SE  .74, p  .179) nor gender (b  4.52, SE .001, and a higher h-index, r(432)  .43, p  .001. Being male was 2.72, p  .097) were significant predictors, with gender accounting also significantly correlated with the main variable of interest, award for 0.6% of the variance. scores, r(432)  .21, p  .001. Model 3’s performance metric was h-index (R  .16, F(4, 409) Year of degree, as would be expected, was negatively correlated 19.93, p  .001). As in Model 2, only year of degree (b .63, with total publications, r(432).52, p  .001, total cites, r(432)  SE  .16, p  .001) and h-index (b  6.77, SE  2.48, p  .007) .43, p  .001, h-index, r(432) .61, p  .001, and award score, were significant predictors of award score. Neither institution score r(432) .34, p  .001. Institution prestige had a significant, (b  1.15, SE  .74, p  .13) nor gender (b  4.1, SE  2.83, p positive correlation with total publications, r(432)  g.10, p  .037, .15) were significant predictors of award score. total cites, r(432)  .19, p  .001, h-index, r(432)  .14, p  .003, To further examine the role of gender and the other variables in and award score, r(432)  .11, p  .023. Together, year of degree and Models 2 and 3, we conducted four mediation analyses. The first two institution prestige accounted for 13% of the variance in award score tested whether citations and h-index mediated the effect of gender on (R  .13, F(2, 411)  31.6, p  .001). Not surprisingly, total award score. The final two tested whether award score mediated the publications, total cites, and h-index were highly intercorrelated (all effect of gender on citations and h-index. Both could be true, to rs  .5). different degrees. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Total Women Men Factor MSD Min Max MSD Min Max MSD Min Max Award score 37.9 25.02 0 77 30.0 23.21 0 72 41.5 25.03 0 77 Degree year 1994 8.84 1960 2009 1996 8.13 1965 2009 1993 8.99 1960 2009 Institution score 5.29 1.84 1.67 8 4.85 2.22 1.67 8 5.48 1.61 1.67 8 Total publications 185 154.75 10 946 120 124.67 10 888 214 158.31 11 946 Total citations 11,890 10,547 372 70,137 7,271 7,121 372 46,267 13,967 11,170 575 70,137 h-Index 34 21.42 5 106 21 12.17 5 96 40 22.09 6 106 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 8 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN Table 3 panel of Figure 1, included gender as the predictor variable, award Regression Models Predicting Award Score score as the outcome variable, and total cites as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI indicated that total cites fully Regression model bSE mediates the effect of gender on award score: The indirect effect of gender on award score through total cites was significant (b  2.49, Model 1 (R  .15) *** Degree year .88 .15 SE  .86, 95% CI [1.03, 4.42]), while the direct effect of gender on Institution score 1.34 .74 award score was nonsignificant (b  4.52, SE  2.72, 95% CI [.83, Total publications .61 1.67 * 9.86]). Gender 6.74 2.75 Mediation Model 2, shown in the top right panel of Figure 1, Model 2 (R  .17) *** Degree year .70 .14 included gender as the predictor variable, award score as the Institution score 1.00 .14 outcome variable, and h-index as the mediator variable. The bias ** Total citations 4.44 1.32 † corrected bootstrap 95% CI indicated that h-index fully mediates Gender 4.52 2.72 Model 3 (R  .16) the effect of gender on award score: The indirect effect of gender *** Degree year .63 .16 on award score through h-index was significant (b  2.9, SE  1.2, Institution score 1.15 .74 95% CI [0.86, 5.59]), while the direct effect of gender on award ** h-Index 6.77 2.48 score was nonsignificant (b  4.1, SE  2.83, 95% CI [1.47, Gender 4.10 2.83 9.67]). † * ** *** p  .1. p  .05. p  .01. p  .001. Mediation Model 3, shown in the bottom left panel of Figure 1, included gender as the predictor variable, total cites as the outcome variable, and award score as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected We tested both models using the PROCESS macro of SPSS Ver- bootstrap 95% CI indicated that award score partially mediates the sion 24.0, developed by Hayes (2017). The PROCESS macro esti- effect of gender on total cites: The indirect effect of gender on total mates effects with bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals that cites through award score was significant, (b  .04, SE  .02, 95% CI are significant when the upper and lower bound of the bias-corrected [.01, .10]), and the direct effect of gender on h-index was also 95% confidence intervals (CI) does not contain zero. Mediation is significant (b  .52, SE  .10, 95% CI [.33, .71]). assessed by the indirect effect of the X (independent variable) on Y Mediation Model 4, shown in the bottom right panel of Figure 1, (dependent variable) through M (the mediator), which can be signif- included gender as the predictor variable, h-index as the outcome icant regardless of the significance of the total effect (the effect of X variable, and award score as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected on Y) and the direct effect (the effect on Y when both X and M are bootstrap 95% CI indicated award score partially mediates the effect included as predictors). of gender on h-index: The indirect effect of gender on h-index through In all four mediation models, institution score and year of degree were included as covariates. Mediation Model 1, shown in the top left award score was significant (b  0.41, SE  0.05, 95% CI [0.31, Figure 1. h-index as a mediator of the effect of gender on award score (top panel) and award score as a mediator of the effect of gender on total cites and h-index (bottom panel). Direct effects controlling for the mediators are in parentheses. Pathways represent standardized coefficients. * p  .01. ** p  .001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 9 .51]), and the direct effect of gender on h-index was also significant quality papers by women that they failed to cite. Second, to the extent (b  0.02, SE  0.01, 95% CI [0.005, 0.04]). that awards are important signals of achievement both for observers and for scholars themselves, more attention to gender equity in the distribution of awards is warranted. Interventions to consider are Discussion ensuring that women are nominated for awards in convincing nomi- Our aim was to understand the determinants of award bestowal and nation letters, ensuring that women are present on awards panels, and the role of gender. To this end, we tested the hypothesis that gender ensuring that awards panelists learn about the ways that women can be disparities in awards to faculty in neuroscience are attributable in part undervalued professionally. to direct or indirect effects of gender schemas. Our approach was to estimate the effect of gender on award scores (i.e., the total prestige of Conclusion the awards bestowed upon a researcher) while controlling for other factors that lead to award receipt: year of degree, institutional prestige, Ours is one of the few studies to examine gender disparities in total publications, total citations, and h-index. We found that women awards while controlling for other plausible factors that would lead to had lower award scores than men, and that this effect remained when awards (see King et al., 2018). Additional research is necessary in controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total publi- order to reliably estimate the independent effect of gender on awards. cations. Controlling for either total citations or h-index, however, Overall, however, the present findings are consistent with existing eliminated the gender gap in award score. work showing that women in science receive fewer honors than men Because gender was unrelated to award score after controlling for (Johnson et al., 2017; King et al., 2018; Lincoln et al., 2012; Nittrouer structural factors and (citation-based) performance metrics, our find- et al., 2018; Popejoy & Leboy, 2012; Schroeder et al., 2013; Silver et ings do not support a direct path from gender schemas to gender al., 2018; Wennerås & Wold, 1997) and that this may result from disparities in awards. However, our findings are consistent with an gendered citation patterns. The present findings also provide novel indirect path from gender schemas to gender disparities in awards: directions for future research, namely, to establish the causal relation- Gender schemas may lead to women’s papers receiving fewer cita- ships among gender, award score, total cites, and h-index in neuro- tions than men’s papers, resulting in more prestigious awards for men science. than for women. As previously discussed, this account is consistent with research demonstrating that women are cited less than men References independent of the quality of their work and even when they publish Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable? in high-impact journals (Bendels et al., 2018; Dion et al., 2018; Management Science, 60, 92–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013 Larivière et al., 2013; Maliniak et al., 2013; cf. Lynn et al., 2019). A second, non-mutually exclusive account of our findings is that Bendels, M. H. K., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). they reflect a reciprocal influence between awards and citations: Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index jour- Women’s papers may have received fewer citations in part because nals. PLoS ONE, 13, e0189136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone they received fewer awards. Consistent with this, we found that award .0189136 Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). What factors score partially mediated the effect of gender on total cites and h-index. determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? This finding points to a feedback loop between awards and perfor- Journal of Informetrics, 6, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.08 mance: Gender schemas produce gender disparities in awards (by creating gender disparities in citation and h-index), which then exac- Brashears, M. E., Hoagland, E., & Quintane, E. (2016). Sex and network recall erbates gender disparities in total cites and h-index, which then accuracy. Social Networks, 44, 74–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet exacerbates gender disparities in awards, ad infinitum. On this ac- .2015.06.002 count, gender disparities in citations and h-index not only cause Casadevall, A., & Handelsman, J. (2014). The presence of female conveners gender disparities in awards, but are also effects of gender disparities correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. in awards. mBio, 5, e00846–e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00846-13 Of course, our findings do not rule out the possibility than women’s Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. and men’s papers differ in quality. Doing so would require an objec- Political Analysis, 26, 312–327. tive measure of quality, which is elusive. As we have suggested, Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, quality does not correspond to number of citations or h-index. T. K., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2012). The possible role of resource A few qualifications are in order. First, from the present cross- requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in sectional observational data it is not possible to tease apart the publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7, e51332. http://dx.doi.org/10 complex relations that hold among the variables we included. Also, .1371/journal.pone.0051332 our models accounted for less than 20% of the variance, suggesting Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in that variables we did not include—such as the prestige of the nomi- psychology. Scientometrics, 105, 2023–2034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ nators and the quality of nomination letters—may be important. For s11192-015-1757-5 instance, recommendation letters for job candidates tend to overrate Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford men (e.g., Trix & Psenka, 2003), and critiques of grant proposals are Press. more likely to describe men than women as leaders and pioneers Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes (Magua et al., 2017). But awards may also simply have a large prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social element of luck involved. Despite these caveats, the present results Issues, 57, 657–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234 have a number of practical implications. Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Braun, S. (2015). Presumed incompetent: First, our findings suggest that researchers can promote gender Perceived lack of fit and gender bias in recruitment and selection. In A. M. equality in awards by being diligent in searching for and citing Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in high-quality papers by women as well as men. Such diligence can be management: Getting in, getting on, getting out (pp. 90–104). Cheltenham, fostered by increasing awareness among individual researchers, and United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781782547709 by editorial and reviewer efforts to alert authors to relevant, high- .00014 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 10 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN Johnson, C. S., Smith, P. K., & Wang, C. (2017). Sage on the stage: Women’s at top universities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the representation at an academic conference. Personality and Social Psychol- United States of America, 115, 104–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas ogy Bulletin, 43, 493–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167216688213 .1708414115 Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey, A. P. O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). (2017). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle. Industrial Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10, universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educa- 51–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.91 tional Research Journal, 54, 1154 –1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ King, J. J., Angoff, N. R., Forrest, J. J., & Justice, A. C. (2018). Gender disparities in medical student research awards: A thirteen-year study from Popejoy, A., & Leboy, P. (2012). Is math still just a man’s world? Journal of the Yale School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 93, 911–919. Mathematics and Systems Science, 2, 292–298. King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Sandström, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over Scientometrics, 74, 175–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3 time. Socius. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Sardelis, S., & Drew, J. A. (2016). Not “pulling up the ladder”: Women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to Klein, R. S., Voskuhl, R., Segal, B. M., Dittel, B. N., Lane, T. E., Bethea, J. R., speak at conservation conferences. PLoS ONE, 11, e0160015. http://dx.doi . . . Cross, A. H. (2017). Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160015 speakers improves diversity. Nature Immunology, 18, 475–478. http://dx Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H. L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D. M., Saul, .doi.org/10.1038/ni.3707 J.,... Horrocks, N. P. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063–2069. http:// Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. http://dx.doi dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12198 .org/10.1038/504211a Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. (2011). Academic ranking of world universi- Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda ties since 2011. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ effect in science: Awards and prizes in the U. S., 1990s and 2000s. Social ARWU2011.html Studies of Science, 42, 307–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312711 Silver, J. K., Blauwet, C. A., Bhatnagar, S., Slocum, C. S., Tenforde, A. S., Schneider, J. C.,... Mazwi, N. L. (2018). Women physicians are under- Lynn, F. B., Noonan, M. C., Sauder, M., & Andersson, M. A. (2019). A rare represented in recognition awards from the Association of Academic case of gender parity in academia. Social Force. Advance online publica- Physiatrists. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 97, tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy126 34–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000792 MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and and excellence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/ Technology, 69, 474–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970 mitpress/9766.001.0001 Magua, W., Zhu, X., Bhattacharya, A., Filut, A., Potvien, A., Leatherberry, R., Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of . . . Kaatz, A. (2017). Are female applicants disadvantaged in National recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, Institutes of Health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and 14, 191–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277 qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers’ Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. critiques. Journal of Women’s Health, 26, 560–570. http://dx.doi.org/10 van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). .1089/jwh.2016.6021 Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in Scientometrics, 93, 857–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y international relations. International Organization, 67, 889–922. http://dx Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. .doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209 Nature, 387, 341–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387341a0 Melnikoff, D. (2019). Awards in neuroscience [Data set]. Retrieved from https://osf.io/4jefy/ Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: Nittrouer, C. L., Hebl, M. R., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, Lane, D. M., & Valian, V. (2018). Gender disparities in colloquium speakers 847–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657505 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 11 Appendix List of Awards and Average Award Score American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellow 7 American Academy of Neurology Norman Geschwind Prize in Behavioral Neurology 4 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow 5 Philip Hauge Abelson Award 5 Eppendorf and Science Prize for Neurobiology 3 Newcomb Cleveland Prize 2 American Neurological Association Elected member 6 American Psychological Association Fellow 7 Master Lecturer 7 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology 6 D.G. Marquis Behavioral Neuroscience Award 4 Association for Psychological Science Fellow 8 James McKeen Cattell Award 8 Williams James Fellow 8 Janet T Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions 7 Cognitive Neuroscience Society Distinguished Career Contributions Award 8 George A. Miller Prize 7 National Academy of Sciences Fellow 9 Troland Award 8 Nobel Prize 9 Organization for Human Brain Mapping Wiley Young Investigator Award 3 Editor’s Choice Award 2 Society of Experimental Psychologists Fellow 5 Society for Neuroscience Mika Salpeter Lifetime Achievement Award 6 Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation Neuroscience Prize 6 Young Investigator Award 6 Ralph W. Gerard Prize in Neuroscience 5 Swartz Prize for Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience 5 Jacob P. Waletzky Award 3 Janett Rosenberg Trubatch Career Development Award 2 Received March 15, 2018 Revision received May 16, 2019 Accepted June 12, 2019 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Scientific Psychology American Psychological Association

Gender Disparities in Awards to Neuroscience Researchers

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/gender-disparities-in-awards-to-neuroscience-researchers-RpZSmbQ5U7

References (37)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
© 2019 American Psychological Association
eISSN
2169-3269
DOI
10.1037/arc0000069
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Archives of Scientific Psychology 2019, 7, 4–11 © 2019 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000069 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc SPECIAL SECTION: ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE David E. Melnikoff Yale University Virginia V. Valian CUNY Graduate Center ABSTRACT Women in academia receive fewer prestigious awards than their male counterparts. Why this gender gap emerges, however, remains poorly understood. Thus, we tested multiple hypotheses about the proximate cause of the gender gap in award prestige. Our findings suggest that the gender gap in award prestige may emerge in part from gender schemas that portray women as warmer and less competent than men. Specifically, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that gender schemas lead to women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers, which in turn results in more prestigious awards for men than for women. Additionally, our results suggest that gender disparities in awards and citations may reinforce each other. Practical implications for promoting gender equality in academic awards are discussed. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Women in academia receive fewer prestigious awards than their male counterparts. This gender gap may emerge purely from structural factors (e.g., gender differences in time spent in academia, institutional prestige, and academic perfor- mance), or from a combination of structural and psychological factors (e.g., gender schemas). To test these competing predictions, we assessed the independent contribution of year of degree, institutional prestige (a composite of prestige of PhD school and current affiliation), academic performance (total publications, total cites, and h-index), and gender to the prestige of awards earned by male (N  298) and female (N  134) academic neuroscientists. Award prestige was determined by an independent set of neuroscientists. Men earned more prestigious awards than women after controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total publications. But after controlling for total citations or h-index, no gender difference appeared. Mediation analyses revealed that the gender disparity in awards was mediated by a gender difference in total cites and h-index. There was a reciprocal effect as well, in that the gender disparity in total cites and h-index was partially mediated by awards. These results point to an indirect path by which psychological factors may create gender disparities in academic awards: Gender schemas may lead to women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers, resulting in more prestigious awards for men than for women. Additionally, our results suggest that gender disparities in awards and citations may reinforce each other. Practical implications for promoting gender equality in academic awards are discussed. Keywords: gender bias, gender inequality, award, prestige, neuroscience Data repository: https://osf.io/4jefy/ This article was published November 25, 2019. David E. Melnikoff, Department of Psychology, Yale University; Virginia V. Valian, Department of Psychology, Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center. This article is part of the special section “Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace.” The guest editors for this section are Mikki Hebl and Eden B. King. This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (Award 0123609), the National Institutes of Health (Grant GM088530), and the Sloan Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. We thank Nancy Kanwisher and Paul Rozin for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. The authors have made available for use by others the data that underlie the analyses presented in this article (see Melnikoff, 2019), thus allowing replication and potential extensions of this work by qualified researchers. Next users are obligated to involve the data originators in their publication plans, if the originators so desire. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David E. Melnikoff, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: david.melnikoff@yale.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 5 Women in academia receive less recognition for their work com- implicit gender schemas (e.g., Heilman, 2001; Heilman et al., 2015; pared to men. Controlling for representation in their field, women give Valian, 1998). The presence of women on a colloquium, awards, or fewer invited colloquia at universities (Nittrouer et al., 2018) and are organizing committee might counter such schemas by highlighting underrepresented among invited presenters at conferences (for assis- women’s competence. And women do receive more awards when tant and associate professors in social psychology, see Johnson, committees include women (Casadevall & Handelsman, 2014; Klein Smith, & Wang, 2017; for evolutionary biology, see Schroeder et al., et al., 2017; Lincoln et al., 2012; Nittrouer et al., 2018; Sardelis & 2013). Women also receive fewer prestigious awards from profes- Drew, 2016). sional academic societies in a range of fields (Lincoln, Pincus, Koster, In addition to a direct path from gender schemas to gender dispar- & Leboy, 2012; Popejoy & Leboy, 2012; Silver et al., 2018). ities in awards, multiple indirect paths are possible. One indirect path What produces the gender gap in recognition for academic achieve- runs through productivity: The gender schema of women as more ment? The disparity could emerge from structural factors, psycholog- nurturant and communal than men may lead people to request more ical factors, or both (see Heilman, Manzi, & Braun, 2015; Jones, departmental service of women—an imbalance which would be ex- Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017; Stewart & Valian, 2018; pected to subtract from women’s research productivity. Consistent Valian, 1998), but it has been difficult to disambiguate these compet- with this, women are asked to perform, and do perform, dispropor- ing possibilities. Overcoming this barrier is critical: The gender gap is tionately more departmental service than men and produce fewer a prima facie challenge to academia as meritocratic, and may discour- publications (Jones et al., 2017; O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, age aspiring women from continuing in their field. To address the Waugaman, & Jackson, 2017; Valian, 1998; van Arensbergen, van der theoretical and practical issues posed by gender differences in aca- Weijden, & van den Besselaar, 2012). demic achievement, we take as a test case gender differences in A second indirect path by which gender schemas may influence awards to faculty in neuroscience—one of the fastest growing disci- awards runs though citations: The gender schema of women as less plines in science. competent than men may result in women’s papers receiving fewer citations than men’s papers. Women may in turn receive fewer pres- tigious awards than men, because citations reflect norms about whose Possible Reasons for Gender Disparities in Awards work is important (MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 2018). In line with this, women are cited less than men, independent of the quality of Structural Factors their work and even when they publish in high-impact journals (Ben- dels, Müller, Brueggmann, & Groneberg, 2018; Bornmann, Schier, Gender disparities in awards may emerge from gender differences Marx, & Daniel, 2012; Dion, Sumner, & Mitchell, 2018; Larivière, in job placement. Women are less concentrated than men in high- Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto, 2013; Maliniak, Powers, & Walter, prestige institutions, where resources to support research are exten- 2013; but see Lynn, Noonan, Sauder, & Andersson, 2019, for a report sive, teaching occupies less time, institutional rewards are more of equal citations of men and women). Relatedly, women cite them- directed at scholarship than teaching, and graduate students are better selves markedly less than men self-cite (King, Bergstrom, Correll, prepared (Stewart & Valian, 2018; Xie & Shauman, 1998). Thus, Jacquet, & West, 2017). Those data suggest that one problem is how gender disparities in placement may yield gender disparities in pro- women’s performance is perceived, rather than their actual perfor- ductivity, which may in turn lead to gender disparities in awards mance. (Duch et al., 2012; Xie & Shauman, 1998). A third indirect path by which gender schemas may influence Beyond job placement, structural factors that may lead to gender awards runs through measures like the h-index. A necessary conse- disparities in awards include demographic inertia and homophily. quence of fewer publications and fewer citations is a smaller h-index, There are more older men than older women in most academic fields, where h is the number of papers having received that number of and awards tend to go to older people. Thus, one would expect fewer citations or more. (An h of 30 means the author has 30 papers that women than men to receive awards on the basis of age alone. With have been cited at least 30 times.) In psychology, to give one example, respect to homophily, men’s networks may include fewer women than women have a lower h-index than men (Geraci, Balsis, & Busch, women’s networks do; because men have more awards and are likely 2015). to nominate people they know, their homophily will result in propor- tionally more nominations of men (Brashears, Hoagland, & Quintane, State of the Evidence 2016; Sandström & Hällsten, 2008). Finally, there may be a reciprocal influence between awards and Are gender disparities in awards due to structural factors, psycho- citations: Women’s papers may receive fewer citations in part because logical factors, or both? The answer to this question is unclear, as few they have fewer awards. Winning a Howard Hughes Medical Inves- studies have examined gender disparities in awards while controlling tigator Award, for example, is associated with a subsequent small but for other plausible variables that would lead to awards. Some avail- significant increase in citations to work published before the award able evidence, however, suggests that psychological factors may play was bestowed (Azoulay, Stuart, & Wang, 2014). Thus, a failure to an important role. For instance, King, Angoff, Forrest, and Justice receive an early award that could draw attention to one’s work can (2018) estimated the independent contributions of multiple factors to result in fewer citations to that work, in turn affecting the likelihood the receipt of awards by senior medical school students at Yale of later awards. University, all of whom must write a research paper in their final year (King et al., 2018). Over a 13-year period, from 2003 to 2015, equal numbers of men and women submitted senior papers, equal numbers Psychological Factors of men and women were nominated for awards for those papers, and Gender disparities in awards may also emerge from the tendency to equal numbers of men and women overall received awards. Only judge women as less competent and more nurturant and communal about 5% of the 1,000 papers received highest honors. Here, women than men in professional settings, leading directly to gender disparities were underrepresented, receiving slightly less than a third of highest in awards (Jones et al., 2017; Valian, 1998). Such judgments need not honors. Thus, although women received half of all awards, they were reflect conscious attitudes toward women, but instead could reflect a minority of the most selective awards. Even after controlling for This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 6 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN factors that influenced awards, such as type of laboratory, mentor The presenter index on the Society for Neuroscience website al- experience with successful students, and type of research (experimen- lowed us to identify 5,726 unique first plus last authors with posters tal vs. clinical), women were approximately half as likely as men to accepted in the Human Behavior and Cognition category at the annual receive the highest honor. As in a 1997 Swedish study of postdoctoral Society for Neuroscience conference between 2003 and 2011. Of applicant success (Wennerås & Wold, 1997), the awards committee those authors, 1,054 (18%) were tenure-track (or tenured) faculty gave better scores to men than women, especially at the level neces- affiliated with a U.S. college or university who had earned their PhD sary for highest honors. In light of these findings, we hypothesize that in the year 1960 or later. Of those 1,054 eligible presenters, 532 (50%) gender disparities in awards to faculty in neuroscience are attributable posted their CV online. One hundred individuals who were randomly in part to psychological factors—namely, direct or indirect effects of selected and asked to rate the prestige of awards were excluded from gender schemas. analyses, leaving a total of 432 individuals. We determined each individual’s gender based on pictures and, when available, gender-specific pronouns found in their bios. We Present Study referenced the presenter index on the Society for Neuroscience web- The present study estimates the independent contributions of struc- site to identify the number of times they were the first or last author tural and psychological factors to gender disparities in awards to of a presented poster between 2003 and 2011. neuroscience faculty. To maximize the likelihood that we examined only active researchers who would be eligible for awards, we re- Curriculum Vitae (CV) Data Collection stricted our sample to individuals who were first or last authors on an accepted poster during an eight-year period at meetings of the Society We collected the following data from eligible participants’ public for Neuroscience, were tenured or tenure-track faculty, and had a CVs: i) year of PhD (range from 1960 to 2009); ii) PhD-granting curriculum vitae (CV) posted online (87% of tenured and tenure-track institution; iii) institution where they were first employed; iv) current faculty had their CV posted online, which did not vary as a function institution where employed; v) names of awards and prizes; and vi) of gender, p  .739). date of most recent CV update. The restriction to first or last author helped ensure that the person We used each researcher’s most recent publication date as their most responsible for the research (the first author) was included, as most recent CV update in the absence of a note specifying when they was the likely person in whose lab the research was conducted (the made their last update. We coded the world ranking for each of the last author). Although we cannot be sure that research was conducted three institutions (PhD institution, first job, and current employer) in the lab of the last author, or that the first author was responsible for according to the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities the research, we reasoned that including only first and last authors (Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, 2011). The lower the rank the more minimized our likelihood of including nonactive neuroscientists in our prestigious the institution: Ranks 1–10 received a score of 8, ranks analyses. The restriction to tenure-line individuals ensured that only 11–20 received a score of 7, ranks 21–50 received a score of 6, ranks people with full-time positions in academia—those most likely to be 51–100 received a score of 5, ranks 101–200 received a score of 4, candidates for awards—were included. The restriction to individuals 201–300 received a score of 3, 301–400 received a rank of 2, and with online CVs was partly a matter of convenience and partly a way ranks 401–500 received a score of 1. Because institution ranks of PhD of choosing a sample that was professionally active. institution, first job, and current employer were highly intercorrelated We also limited our sample to people who specialized in the same (all rs  .8), we computed their mean to create a single composite subfield. Different subfields have different percentages of men and institution score. Institution score could thus range from 1 to 8. women, have different norms with respect to total research output and Individuals at unranked schools (N  18) were excluded. citations, and are eligible for different awards. We thus examined only neuroscientists whose poster was in the Human Behavior and Cogni- Publication Data tion poster session, which we selected because it was among the largest poster sessions and thus allowed us to maximize our sample We collected the following publication data for each author using size. the software program Publish or Perish (http://www.harzing.com/ We include measures for year of degree, prestige of degree-granting pop.htm): number of total publications, number of total citations, and and present institution, number of publications, number of citations to h-index. We log transformed all publication data to normalize their publications, and gender to determine whether men and women re- distributions. ceive equal awards. However flawed publications and citations are as Although it is one of the most reliable sources of publication data, measures of performance, they are commonly used in determinations Publish or Perish searches sometimes include errors. The program of hiring and promotion. fails to distinguish between authors with the same initials and last name and sometimes lists alternate titles as separate publications (e.g., The brain on drugs vs. brain on drugs, The), which inflates an author’s Method publication total and possibly dilutes their highest cite total. To avoid these issues, we manually removed all erroneous author inclusions by Participants identifying those that corresponded to publication titles clearly incom- We analyzed CVs and publication data from male (n  298) and patible with the target author’s line of research. We also aggregated female (n  134) academic neuroscientists. To be included in our data for all publications with alternate spellings. sample, researchers must have met the following criteria: i) position as first or last author of a poster accepted for presentation in the Human Award Score Behavior and Cognition category at the Society for Neuroscience conferences between 2003 and 2011; ii) status as tenure-track or We identified all major achievement-based awards and prizes for tenured faculty member at a U.S. college or university during the which neuroscientists specializing in human behavior and cognition same year at least one of their posters was accepted; iii) PhD degree are eligible (N  42, of which we used 30; see Appendix for full list). in the year 1960 or later; and iv) availability of an online CV. We excluded awards if they were not primarily given for research This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 7 excellence and awards named after women (Janet T. Spence, Janet Table 2 Rosenberg Trubatch, Mika Salpeter). (We excluded awards named Correlations after women in case awards committees view these as more “appro- Factor 1 2 3456 priate” for women scientists. However, results did not differ if we included awards named after women.) 1. Gender — — ———— ** The total amount of prestige that awards confer on an individual 2. Degree year .16 — ———— *** 3. Institution score .30 .05 ———— scientist is a joint function of the number of awards that the scientist *** *** * 4. Total publications .32 .52 .10 ——— has and their quality. To compute a total award score for each scientist *** *** *** ** 5. Total citations .34 .43 .19 .50 —— in our sample, it was necessary to measure the prestige of each award. *** *** ** ** ** 6. h-Index .43 .61 .14 .72 .62 — *** *** * *** *** *** We emailed 100 randomly selected members of our sample and asked 7. Award score .21 .34 .11 .22 .31 .35 them to complete an online questionnaire designed to assess the Note. Gender is scored 0 for female and 1 for male. prestige of awards and prizes in neuroscience. (These individuals were * ** *** p  .05. p  .01. p  .001. excluded from all subsequent analyses.) For each award and prize included in our sample, respondents evaluated prestige on a 9-point Given the pattern of correlations, the relationship between gender scale (1  not at all prestigious;9  extremely prestigious). Interrater and award score could be due to gender differences in year of degree, reliability was good among the 52 neuroscientists (36% female) who current institution ranking, total publications, total cites, h-index, or completed the survey ( .84). We assigned each award a prestige some combination thereof. To test those possibilities, we performed score equal to its mean rating (all of which were unmoderated by the three regressions (see Table 3). Models regressed gender, year of gender of the rater), and assigned each participant an award score degree, current institution ranking, and one of the three performance equal to the sum of their awards’ prestige scores. metrics (total publications, total cites, or h-index) on award score. All Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all variables. The awards three models accounted for a significant amount of variance in award scores are for all awards, including those named after women. score. Model 1’s performance metric was total publications (R  .15, Results F(4, 409)  17.78, p  .001). Gender had a significant effect on As shown in Table 1, which lists the descriptive statistics for all award score (b  6.74, SE  2.75, p  .014), accounting for 1.3% of variables, the ranges of scores for all variables except gender were the variance. Specifically, men had higher award scores than women, large. For example, award scores ranged from 0 to 77; year of degree over and above a marginal effect of institution prestige, (b  1.34, ranged from 1960 to 2009; institution score ranged from 1.67 to 8; SE  .74, p  .073) and the significant effect of year of degree (b total publications ranged from 10 to 946; total cites ranged from 372 .88, SE  .15, p  .001). Total publications were not significant to 70,137; and h-indexes ranged from 5 to 106. (b  .61, SE  1.67, p  .716). Correlations among all variables of interest are displayed in Table Model 2’s performance metric was total citations (R  .17, F(4, 2. Being male (rather than female) was associated with an earlier date 409)  21.04, p  .001). In this model, only total citations (b  4.44, of PhD attainment, r(432) .16, p  .001, working at higher SE  1.32, p  .001) and year of degree (b .70, SE  .14, p ranked universities, r(432)  .30, p  .001, having more total .001) were significant predictors of award score. Neither institution publications, r(432)  .323, p  .001, total cites, r(432)  .34, p  score (b  1.40, SE  .74, p  .179) nor gender (b  4.52, SE .001, and a higher h-index, r(432)  .43, p  .001. Being male was 2.72, p  .097) were significant predictors, with gender accounting also significantly correlated with the main variable of interest, award for 0.6% of the variance. scores, r(432)  .21, p  .001. Model 3’s performance metric was h-index (R  .16, F(4, 409) Year of degree, as would be expected, was negatively correlated 19.93, p  .001). As in Model 2, only year of degree (b .63, with total publications, r(432).52, p  .001, total cites, r(432)  SE  .16, p  .001) and h-index (b  6.77, SE  2.48, p  .007) .43, p  .001, h-index, r(432) .61, p  .001, and award score, were significant predictors of award score. Neither institution score r(432) .34, p  .001. Institution prestige had a significant, (b  1.15, SE  .74, p  .13) nor gender (b  4.1, SE  2.83, p positive correlation with total publications, r(432)  g.10, p  .037, .15) were significant predictors of award score. total cites, r(432)  .19, p  .001, h-index, r(432)  .14, p  .003, To further examine the role of gender and the other variables in and award score, r(432)  .11, p  .023. Together, year of degree and Models 2 and 3, we conducted four mediation analyses. The first two institution prestige accounted for 13% of the variance in award score tested whether citations and h-index mediated the effect of gender on (R  .13, F(2, 411)  31.6, p  .001). Not surprisingly, total award score. The final two tested whether award score mediated the publications, total cites, and h-index were highly intercorrelated (all effect of gender on citations and h-index. Both could be true, to rs  .5). different degrees. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Total Women Men Factor MSD Min Max MSD Min Max MSD Min Max Award score 37.9 25.02 0 77 30.0 23.21 0 72 41.5 25.03 0 77 Degree year 1994 8.84 1960 2009 1996 8.13 1965 2009 1993 8.99 1960 2009 Institution score 5.29 1.84 1.67 8 4.85 2.22 1.67 8 5.48 1.61 1.67 8 Total publications 185 154.75 10 946 120 124.67 10 888 214 158.31 11 946 Total citations 11,890 10,547 372 70,137 7,271 7,121 372 46,267 13,967 11,170 575 70,137 h-Index 34 21.42 5 106 21 12.17 5 96 40 22.09 6 106 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 8 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN Table 3 panel of Figure 1, included gender as the predictor variable, award Regression Models Predicting Award Score score as the outcome variable, and total cites as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI indicated that total cites fully Regression model bSE mediates the effect of gender on award score: The indirect effect of gender on award score through total cites was significant (b  2.49, Model 1 (R  .15) *** Degree year .88 .15 SE  .86, 95% CI [1.03, 4.42]), while the direct effect of gender on Institution score 1.34 .74 award score was nonsignificant (b  4.52, SE  2.72, 95% CI [.83, Total publications .61 1.67 * 9.86]). Gender 6.74 2.75 Mediation Model 2, shown in the top right panel of Figure 1, Model 2 (R  .17) *** Degree year .70 .14 included gender as the predictor variable, award score as the Institution score 1.00 .14 outcome variable, and h-index as the mediator variable. The bias ** Total citations 4.44 1.32 † corrected bootstrap 95% CI indicated that h-index fully mediates Gender 4.52 2.72 Model 3 (R  .16) the effect of gender on award score: The indirect effect of gender *** Degree year .63 .16 on award score through h-index was significant (b  2.9, SE  1.2, Institution score 1.15 .74 95% CI [0.86, 5.59]), while the direct effect of gender on award ** h-Index 6.77 2.48 score was nonsignificant (b  4.1, SE  2.83, 95% CI [1.47, Gender 4.10 2.83 9.67]). † * ** *** p  .1. p  .05. p  .01. p  .001. Mediation Model 3, shown in the bottom left panel of Figure 1, included gender as the predictor variable, total cites as the outcome variable, and award score as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected We tested both models using the PROCESS macro of SPSS Ver- bootstrap 95% CI indicated that award score partially mediates the sion 24.0, developed by Hayes (2017). The PROCESS macro esti- effect of gender on total cites: The indirect effect of gender on total mates effects with bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals that cites through award score was significant, (b  .04, SE  .02, 95% CI are significant when the upper and lower bound of the bias-corrected [.01, .10]), and the direct effect of gender on h-index was also 95% confidence intervals (CI) does not contain zero. Mediation is significant (b  .52, SE  .10, 95% CI [.33, .71]). assessed by the indirect effect of the X (independent variable) on Y Mediation Model 4, shown in the bottom right panel of Figure 1, (dependent variable) through M (the mediator), which can be signif- included gender as the predictor variable, h-index as the outcome icant regardless of the significance of the total effect (the effect of X variable, and award score as the mediator variable. The bias-corrected on Y) and the direct effect (the effect on Y when both X and M are bootstrap 95% CI indicated award score partially mediates the effect included as predictors). of gender on h-index: The indirect effect of gender on h-index through In all four mediation models, institution score and year of degree were included as covariates. Mediation Model 1, shown in the top left award score was significant (b  0.41, SE  0.05, 95% CI [0.31, Figure 1. h-index as a mediator of the effect of gender on award score (top panel) and award score as a mediator of the effect of gender on total cites and h-index (bottom panel). Direct effects controlling for the mediators are in parentheses. Pathways represent standardized coefficients. * p  .01. ** p  .001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 9 .51]), and the direct effect of gender on h-index was also significant quality papers by women that they failed to cite. Second, to the extent (b  0.02, SE  0.01, 95% CI [0.005, 0.04]). that awards are important signals of achievement both for observers and for scholars themselves, more attention to gender equity in the distribution of awards is warranted. Interventions to consider are Discussion ensuring that women are nominated for awards in convincing nomi- Our aim was to understand the determinants of award bestowal and nation letters, ensuring that women are present on awards panels, and the role of gender. To this end, we tested the hypothesis that gender ensuring that awards panelists learn about the ways that women can be disparities in awards to faculty in neuroscience are attributable in part undervalued professionally. to direct or indirect effects of gender schemas. Our approach was to estimate the effect of gender on award scores (i.e., the total prestige of Conclusion the awards bestowed upon a researcher) while controlling for other factors that lead to award receipt: year of degree, institutional prestige, Ours is one of the few studies to examine gender disparities in total publications, total citations, and h-index. We found that women awards while controlling for other plausible factors that would lead to had lower award scores than men, and that this effect remained when awards (see King et al., 2018). Additional research is necessary in controlling for institutional prestige, year of degree, and total publi- order to reliably estimate the independent effect of gender on awards. cations. Controlling for either total citations or h-index, however, Overall, however, the present findings are consistent with existing eliminated the gender gap in award score. work showing that women in science receive fewer honors than men Because gender was unrelated to award score after controlling for (Johnson et al., 2017; King et al., 2018; Lincoln et al., 2012; Nittrouer structural factors and (citation-based) performance metrics, our find- et al., 2018; Popejoy & Leboy, 2012; Schroeder et al., 2013; Silver et ings do not support a direct path from gender schemas to gender al., 2018; Wennerås & Wold, 1997) and that this may result from disparities in awards. However, our findings are consistent with an gendered citation patterns. The present findings also provide novel indirect path from gender schemas to gender disparities in awards: directions for future research, namely, to establish the causal relation- Gender schemas may lead to women’s papers receiving fewer cita- ships among gender, award score, total cites, and h-index in neuro- tions than men’s papers, resulting in more prestigious awards for men science. than for women. As previously discussed, this account is consistent with research demonstrating that women are cited less than men References independent of the quality of their work and even when they publish Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable? in high-impact journals (Bendels et al., 2018; Dion et al., 2018; Management Science, 60, 92–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013 Larivière et al., 2013; Maliniak et al., 2013; cf. Lynn et al., 2019). A second, non-mutually exclusive account of our findings is that Bendels, M. H. K., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). they reflect a reciprocal influence between awards and citations: Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index jour- Women’s papers may have received fewer citations in part because nals. PLoS ONE, 13, e0189136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone they received fewer awards. Consistent with this, we found that award .0189136 Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). What factors score partially mediated the effect of gender on total cites and h-index. determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? This finding points to a feedback loop between awards and perfor- Journal of Informetrics, 6, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.08 mance: Gender schemas produce gender disparities in awards (by creating gender disparities in citation and h-index), which then exac- Brashears, M. E., Hoagland, E., & Quintane, E. (2016). Sex and network recall erbates gender disparities in total cites and h-index, which then accuracy. Social Networks, 44, 74–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet exacerbates gender disparities in awards, ad infinitum. On this ac- .2015.06.002 count, gender disparities in citations and h-index not only cause Casadevall, A., & Handelsman, J. (2014). The presence of female conveners gender disparities in awards, but are also effects of gender disparities correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. in awards. mBio, 5, e00846–e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00846-13 Of course, our findings do not rule out the possibility than women’s Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. and men’s papers differ in quality. Doing so would require an objec- Political Analysis, 26, 312–327. tive measure of quality, which is elusive. As we have suggested, Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, quality does not correspond to number of citations or h-index. T. K., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2012). The possible role of resource A few qualifications are in order. First, from the present cross- requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in sectional observational data it is not possible to tease apart the publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7, e51332. http://dx.doi.org/10 complex relations that hold among the variables we included. Also, .1371/journal.pone.0051332 our models accounted for less than 20% of the variance, suggesting Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in that variables we did not include—such as the prestige of the nomi- psychology. Scientometrics, 105, 2023–2034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ nators and the quality of nomination letters—may be important. For s11192-015-1757-5 instance, recommendation letters for job candidates tend to overrate Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford men (e.g., Trix & Psenka, 2003), and critiques of grant proposals are Press. more likely to describe men than women as leaders and pioneers Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes (Magua et al., 2017). But awards may also simply have a large prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social element of luck involved. Despite these caveats, the present results Issues, 57, 657–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234 have a number of practical implications. Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Braun, S. (2015). Presumed incompetent: First, our findings suggest that researchers can promote gender Perceived lack of fit and gender bias in recruitment and selection. In A. M. equality in awards by being diligent in searching for and citing Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in high-quality papers by women as well as men. Such diligence can be management: Getting in, getting on, getting out (pp. 90–104). Cheltenham, fostered by increasing awareness among individual researchers, and United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781782547709 by editorial and reviewer efforts to alert authors to relevant, high- .00014 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. 10 MELNIKOFF AND VALIAN Johnson, C. S., Smith, P. K., & Wang, C. (2017). Sage on the stage: Women’s at top universities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the representation at an academic conference. Personality and Social Psychol- United States of America, 115, 104–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas ogy Bulletin, 43, 493–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167216688213 .1708414115 Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey, A. P. O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). (2017). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle. Industrial Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10, universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educa- 51–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.91 tional Research Journal, 54, 1154 –1186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ King, J. J., Angoff, N. R., Forrest, J. J., & Justice, A. C. (2018). Gender disparities in medical student research awards: A thirteen-year study from Popejoy, A., & Leboy, P. (2012). Is math still just a man’s world? Journal of the Yale School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 93, 911–919. Mathematics and Systems Science, 2, 292–298. King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Sandström, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over Scientometrics, 74, 175–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3 time. Socius. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Sardelis, S., & Drew, J. A. (2016). Not “pulling up the ladder”: Women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to Klein, R. S., Voskuhl, R., Segal, B. M., Dittel, B. N., Lane, T. E., Bethea, J. R., speak at conservation conferences. PLoS ONE, 11, e0160015. http://dx.doi . . . Cross, A. H. (2017). Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160015 speakers improves diversity. Nature Immunology, 18, 475–478. http://dx Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H. L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D. M., Saul, .doi.org/10.1038/ni.3707 J.,... Horrocks, N. P. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2063–2069. http:// Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. http://dx.doi dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12198 .org/10.1038/504211a Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. (2011). Academic ranking of world universi- Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda ties since 2011. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ effect in science: Awards and prizes in the U. S., 1990s and 2000s. Social ARWU2011.html Studies of Science, 42, 307–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312711 Silver, J. K., Blauwet, C. A., Bhatnagar, S., Slocum, C. S., Tenforde, A. S., Schneider, J. C.,... Mazwi, N. L. (2018). Women physicians are under- Lynn, F. B., Noonan, M. C., Sauder, M., & Andersson, M. A. (2019). A rare represented in recognition awards from the Association of Academic case of gender parity in academia. Social Force. Advance online publica- Physiatrists. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 97, tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy126 34–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000792 MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and and excellence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/ Technology, 69, 474–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970 mitpress/9766.001.0001 Magua, W., Zhu, X., Bhattacharya, A., Filut, A., Potvien, A., Leatherberry, R., Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of . . . Kaatz, A. (2017). Are female applicants disadvantaged in National recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, Institutes of Health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and 14, 191–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277 qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers’ Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. critiques. Journal of Women’s Health, 26, 560–570. http://dx.doi.org/10 van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). .1089/jwh.2016.6021 Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in Scientometrics, 93, 857–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y international relations. International Organization, 67, 889–922. http://dx Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. .doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209 Nature, 387, 341–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387341a0 Melnikoff, D. (2019). Awards in neuroscience [Data set]. Retrieved from https://osf.io/4jefy/ Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: Nittrouer, C. L., Hebl, M. R., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, Lane, D. M., & Valian, V. (2018). Gender disparities in colloquium speakers 847–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657505 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association. GENDER DISPARITIES IN NEUROSCIENCE AWARDS 11 Appendix List of Awards and Average Award Score American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellow 7 American Academy of Neurology Norman Geschwind Prize in Behavioral Neurology 4 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow 5 Philip Hauge Abelson Award 5 Eppendorf and Science Prize for Neurobiology 3 Newcomb Cleveland Prize 2 American Neurological Association Elected member 6 American Psychological Association Fellow 7 Master Lecturer 7 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology 6 D.G. Marquis Behavioral Neuroscience Award 4 Association for Psychological Science Fellow 8 James McKeen Cattell Award 8 Williams James Fellow 8 Janet T Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions 7 Cognitive Neuroscience Society Distinguished Career Contributions Award 8 George A. Miller Prize 7 National Academy of Sciences Fellow 9 Troland Award 8 Nobel Prize 9 Organization for Human Brain Mapping Wiley Young Investigator Award 3 Editor’s Choice Award 2 Society of Experimental Psychologists Fellow 5 Society for Neuroscience Mika Salpeter Lifetime Achievement Award 6 Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation Neuroscience Prize 6 Young Investigator Award 6 Ralph W. Gerard Prize in Neuroscience 5 Swartz Prize for Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience 5 Jacob P. Waletzky Award 3 Janett Rosenberg Trubatch Career Development Award 2 Received March 15, 2018 Revision received May 16, 2019 Accepted June 12, 2019 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Journal

Archives of Scientific Psychology – American Psychological Association

Published: Nov 25, 2019

There are no references for this article.