
AbstractThere has been a notable increase in bibliometric research studying gender in academia. This narrative review aims to organize and synthesize this extensive body of work to uncover new insights into gender disparities in science. We begin by analyzing key methodological elements, including gender assignment techniques, units of analysis, and causality issues. Next, we identify and categorize the main findings of the literature into three groups: differences in academia, causes behind these differences, and their primary consequences. Finally, we point out gaps in the literature and propose new lines of inquiry to address these gaps. These proposals include more rigorous gender assignment algorithms, fostering comparability of studies, exploring a broader range of topics, and improving the interpretability and context of results when studying gender.
Literature review, Academia, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Gender, Gender gap
Literature review, Academia, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Gender, Gender gap
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
