IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i7d10.1007_s11192-024-05094-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact as equalizer: the demise of gender-related differences in anti-doping research

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Kiss

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE)
    Pro-Sharp Research and Innovation Centre)

  • Sándor Soós

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE)
    Pro-Sharp Research and Innovation Centre)

  • Andrea Petróczi

    (Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE)
    Kingston University
    KU Leuven
    University of Münster)

Abstract

In general, the presence and performance of women in science have increased significantly in recent decades. However, gender-related differences persist and remain a global phenomenon. Women make a greater contribution to multidisciplinary research, which renders anti-doping research a compelling area for investigating the gendered aspects of academic research. The research design was based on the overall research aim to investigate whether gender in a specific field (ADS) has an effect on different aspects of research impact, including (1) the size of citation impact obtained by the research output, (2) the impact on the development of the knowledge base of ADS, expressed as the capacity of integrating knowledge from different research areas, and (3) the (expected) type of research impact targeting either societal or scientific developments (or both). We used a previously compiled dataset of 1341 scientific outputs. Using regression analysis, we explored the role of authors’ gender in citations and the effect of authorship features on scientific impact. We employed network analysis and developed a novel indicator (LinkScore) to quantify gendered authors’ knowledge integration capacity. We carried out a content analysis on a subsample of 210 outputs to explore gender differences in research goal orientation as related to gender patterns. Women’s representation has been considerably extended in the domain of ADS throughout the last two decades. On average, outputs with female corresponding authors yield a higher average citation score. Regarding women's knowledge integration roles, we can infer that no substantial gender differences can be detected. Dominantly female papers were overrepresented among publications classified as aimed at scientific progress, while the share of male-authored papers was higher in publications classified as aimed at societal progress. Although no significant gender difference was observed in knowledge integration roles, in anti-doping women appear to be more interdisciplinary than men.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Andrea Petróczi, 2024. "Impact as equalizer: the demise of gender-related differences in anti-doping research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4071-4108, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05094-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05094-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05094-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05094-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kellie L. Maske & Garey C. Durden & Patricia E. Gaynor, 2003. "Determinants of Scholarly Productivity among Male and Female Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 555-564, October.
    2. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2021. "Gender Disparities In International Research Collaboration: A Study Of 25,000 University Professors," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1344-1380, December.
    3. Michael T. Henderson & Natalia Fijalkowski & Sean K. Wang & Mitch Maltenfort & Luo Luo Zheng & John Ratliff & Andrew A. Moshfeghi & Darius M. Moshfeghi, 2014. "Gender differences in compensation in academic medicine: the results from four neurological specialties within the University of California Healthcare System," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 297-306, July.
    4. Saeed Roshani & Mohammad-Reza Bagherylooieh & Melika Mosleh & Mario Coccia, 2021. "What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7859-7874, September.
    5. Erjia Yan & Chaojiang Wu & Min Song, 2018. "The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 369-384, April.
    6. Vincent Larivière & Chaoqun Ni & Yves Gingras & Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2013. "Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 504(7479), pages 211-213, December.
    7. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    8. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    9. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    10. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Tobin, Catherine & Bradshaw, Noel-Ann, 2019. "Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 149-169.
    11. John Rigby, 2011. "Systematic grant and funding body acknowledgement data for publications: new dimensions and new controversies for research policy and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(5), pages 365-375, December.
    12. Jacqueline Leta & Grant Lewison, 2003. "The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 339-353, July.
    13. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Emre Özel, 2022. "Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. J. Chubb & G. E. Derrick, 2020. "The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Carley & Ismael Rafols, 2013. "Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 589-593, February.
    16. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    17. Yuanyuan Shang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Zhe Cao & Lin Zhang, 2022. "Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4769-4796, August.
    18. Snell, Clete & Sorensen, Jon & Rodriguez, John J. & Kuanliang, Attapol, 2009. "Gender differences in research productivity among criminal justice and criminology scholars," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 288-295, May.
    19. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    20. J. Chubb & G. E. Derrick, 2020. "Correction: The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-1, December.
    21. Shen, Hongquan & Xie, Juan & Ao, Weiyi & Cheng, Ying, 2022. "The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yining Wang & Qiang Wu & Liangyu Li, 2024. "Examining the influence of women scientists on scientific impact and novelty: insights from top business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3517-3542, June.
    2. Dengsheng Wu & Huidong Wu & Jianping Li, 2024. "Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4275-4293, July.
    3. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2015. "Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 795-812, June.
    4. Arjun Prakash & Jeevan John Varghese & Shruti Aggarwal, 2024. "Gender of gender studies: examining regional and gender-based disparities in scholarly publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4471-4493, July.
    5. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    6. Yuanyuan Shang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Zhe Cao & Lin Zhang, 2022. "Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4769-4796, August.
    7. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    8. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    9. Shang, Yuanyuan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Cao, Zhe & Zhang, Lin, 2021. "Gender differences in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality," SocArXiv 3fapz, Center for Open Science.
    10. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    11. Liu, Meijun & Zhang, Ning & Hu, Xiao & Jaiswal, Ajay & Xu, Jian & Chen, Hong & Ding, Ying & Bu, Yi, 2022. "Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    12. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    13. Xiang Zheng & Jiajing Chen & Erjia Yan & Chaoqun Ni, 2023. "Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 219-233, February.
    14. Melika Mosleh & Saeed Roshani & Mario Coccia, 2022. "Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1931-1951, April.
    15. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    16. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.
    17. Chaojiang Wu & Erjia Yan & Yongjun Zhu & Kai Li, 2021. "Gender imbalance in the productivity of funded projects: A study of the outputs of National Institutes of Health R01 grants," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(11), pages 1386-1399, November.
    18. Kwiek, Marek & Szymula, Łukasz, 2024. "Growth of Science and Women: Methodological Challenges of Using Structured Big Data," SocArXiv w34pr, Center for Open Science.
    19. Marton Demeter & Agnes Jele & Zsolt Balázs Major, 2022. "The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4335-4361, August.
    20. Li, Heyang & Wu, Meijun & Wang, Yougui & Zeng, An, 2022. "Bibliographic coupling networks reveal the advantage of diversification in scientific projects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05094-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.