Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 10;12(5):e0176791.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176791. eCollection 2017.

Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men

Affiliations

Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men

Eduardo B Araújo et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

By analyzing a unique dataset of more than 270,000 scientists, we discovered substantial gender differences in scientific collaborations. While men are more likely to collaborate with other men, women are more egalitarian. This is consistently observed over all fields and regardless of the number of collaborators a scientist has. The only exception is observed in the field of engineering, where this gender bias disappears with increasing number of collaborators. We also found that the distribution of the number of collaborators follows a truncated power law with a cut-off that is gender dependent and related to the gender differences in the number of published papers. Considering interdisciplinary research, our analysis shows that men and women behave similarly across fields, except in the case of natural sciences, where women with many collaborators are more likely to have collaborators from other fields.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
a) Distribution of the number of collaborators for men (blue squares) and women (red asterisks). The distributions are fitted with a truncated power law, P(k) = Ak−αe−k/β, plotted as dashed lines with colors corresponding to data points. The best fit is obtained for α = 1.53, and β = 85.4 and β = 49.5, for men and women, respectively, with r-squared 0.996 for men and 0.999 for women. b) Distribution of the number of recurrent collaborations between scientists (weights) for men (blue squares) and women (red asterisks). Solid lines are power-law fits, P(w) = Bw−λ, with colors corresponding to data points. For men, λ = 2.86 ± 0.04, while for women λ = 3.17 ± 0.06. With r-squared 0.997 for men and 0.996 for women.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Mean values of the g-ratio across fields.
Same abreviations for the fields as in Table 2. Blue (left) and red (right) bars represent values for men and women, respectively. Yellow triangles show the fraction of women working in the respective field. The error bars are smaller than 0.1% (see Table 3).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Relation between the g-ratio and the number of collaborators for Biological Sciences (BIO, main plot) and Engineering (ENG, inset) for women (red stars) and men (blue circles).
Lines represent the fraction of women in the respective field. Men are more likely to collaborate with other men than with their female peers. For Engineering, the g-ratio is even above the fraction of women in the field. Error bars indicate the standard error for each bin.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Dependence of the m-ratio on the number of collaborators in Biological Sciences (BIO, main plot) and Exact and Earth Sciences (EXA, inset) for women (red starts) and men (blue circles).
Except for Exact and Earth Sciences (see inset), there is only a slight difference regarding multidisciplinary collaborations. Error bars indicate the standard error for each bin.

References

    1. Leslie LL, McClure GT, Oaxaca RL. Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering: A life Sequence Analysis. The Journal of Higher Education. 1996;69:239–276. 10.2307/2649188 - DOI
    1. Handelsman J, Cantor N, Carnes M, Denton D, Fine E, Grosz B, et al. More women in science. Science. 2005;309(5738):1190–1191. 10.1126/science.1113252 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schiebinger L. Getting more women into science: knowledge issues. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender. 2007;30:350.
    1. Duch J, Zeng XHT, Sales-Pardo M, Radicchi F, Otis S, Woodruff TK, et al. The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact. PLOS One. 2012;7:e51332 10.1371/journal.pone.0051332 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Crescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science Faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109:16474–16479. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources