女性占主导地位的学科，无论男性还是女性，其评估研究质量和资助成功率都较低。

IF 6.4 1区生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY

eLife Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.7554/eLife.97613

Alex James, Franca Buelow, Liam Gibson, Ann Brower

{"title":"女性占主导地位的学科，无论男性还是女性，其评估研究质量和资助成功率都较低。","authors":"Alex James, Franca Buelow, Liam Gibson, Ann Brower","doi":"10.7554/eLife.97613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.","PeriodicalId":11640,"journal":{"name":"eLife","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377033/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women.\",\"authors\":\"Alex James, Franca Buelow, Liam Gibson, Ann Brower\",\"doi\":\"10.7554/eLife.97613\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"eLife\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377033/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"eLife\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97613\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eLife","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97613","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

我们利用来自 30 个国家的数据发现，一个学科中的女性人数越多，该学科的研究质量就越低，资助成功率也越低。这种情况对男性和女性都有影响，而且与年龄、研究成果数量和文献计量指标（如果有此类数据）密切相关。我们的研究建立在其他研究成果的基础上，这些研究成果表明，无论谁从事研究工作，妇女的工作价值都较低。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women.

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

eLife BIOLOGY-

CiteScore

12.90

自引率

3.90%

发文量

3122

审稿时长

17 weeks

期刊介绍： eLife is a distinguished, not-for-profit, peer-reviewed open access scientific journal that specializes in the fields of biomedical and life sciences. eLife is known for its selective publication process, which includes a variety of article types such as: Research Articles: Detailed reports of original research findings. Short Reports: Concise presentations of significant findings that do not warrant a full-length research article. Tools and Resources: Descriptions of new tools, technologies, or resources that facilitate scientific research. Research Advances: Brief reports on significant scientific advancements that have immediate implications for the field. Scientific Correspondence: Short communications that comment on or provide additional information related to published articles. Review Articles: Comprehensive overviews of a specific topic or field within the life sciences.