Systemic biases within historically male-dominated fields have forced the exclusion of the female and non-binary gender perspective in most high-impact disciplines of scientific research. As biomedical mass spectrometry becomes integral for marker identification in disease diagnosis, diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations must be made to include all relevant perspectives within the scientific investigation. Using bibliometric data, our analysis of publication counts, citation counts, associated geographical factors, publisher data, and the impact of COVID-19 supports a widening gender gap in authorship and a citation bias in favor of male authors in this field. This article serves not only as an insight into the current landscape of gender inequality in scientific publishing in biomedical mass spectrometry but also as a framework on which subsequent research can be built to uncover a comprehensive understanding of these disparities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlShebliBK, RahwanT, WoonWL. The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat Commun, 2018; 9(1):5163; doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8
2.
WatsonWE, JohnsonL, ZgouridesGD. The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams. Int J Intercult Relat, 2002; 26(1):1–16; doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00032-3
3.
YangY, TianTY, WoodruffTK, et al.Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2022; 119(36):e2200841119; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2200841119
4.
(NCSES) NCfSaES. Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. National Science Foundation: Alexandria, VA; 2023.
5.
RossMB, GlennonBM, Murciano-GoroffR, et al.Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 2022; 608(7921):135–145.
6.
SheltzerJM, SmithJC. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014; 111(28):10107–10112; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403334111
7.
BostwickVK, WeinbergBA. Nevertheless she persisted? Gender peer effects in doctoral STEM programs. J Labor Econ, 2022; 40(2):397–436; doi: 10.1086/714921
8.
MartinezED, BotosJ, DohoneyKM, et al.Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep, 2007; 8(11):977–981; doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401110
9.
CechEA, WaidzunasTJ. Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Sci Adv, 2021; 7(3):eabe0933; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
10.
BurnellDJB. Jocelyn Bell Burnell. 2017.
11.
Editors Bc. Chien-Shiung Wu Biography. A&E; Television Networks: 2021.
12.
TreismanR. Meet the first 2 black women to be inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. 2021.
13.
Fame NIHo. How Exposure to Innovation Impacts Future Success. 2019.
14.
Pinho-GomesAC, VassalloA, WoodwardM, et al.Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. BMJ Open, 2022; 12(5):e061054; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061054
15.
LundineJ, BourgeaultIL, ClarkJ, et al.The gendered system of academic publishing. Lancet, 2018; 391(10132):1754–1756; doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30950-4
16.
LerbackJ, HansonB. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 2017; 541(7638):455–457; doi: 10.1038/541455a
17.
SteinbergJJ, SkaeC, SampsonB. Gender gap, disparity, and inequality in peer review. Lancet, 2018; 391(10140):2602–2603; doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31141-3
18.
FreemanRB, HuangW. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. Journal of Labor Economics, 2015; 33(S1):S289–S318; doi: 10.1086/678973
19.
SegreLS, DavilaRC, CarterC, et al.Race/ethnicity matching boosts enrollment of black participants in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials, 2022; 122:106936; doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106936
20.
RomanelliJR. Diversity, equality, and inclusion in Health Care Innovation. 2022.
21.
DuttaS, WangF-Q, FleischerAC, et al.New frontiers for ovarian cancer risk evaluation: Proteomics and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Am J Roentgenol, 2010; 194(2):349–354; doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3763
22.
OuniE, VertommenD, ChitiMC, et al.A draft map of the human ovarian proteome for tissue engineering and clinical applications. Mol Cell Proteomics, 2019; 18(Suppl 1):S159–S173; doi: 10.1074/mcp.RA117.000469
23.
LaschP, JacobD, GrunowR, et al.Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-Of-Flight (MALDI-TOF) Mass Spectrometry (MS) for the identification of highly pathogenic bacteria. Trends in Analyt Chem, 2016; 85:103–111; doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2016.04.013
24.
LeeH, KimS.II., Review of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based proteomic analyses of body fluids to diagnose infectious diseases. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(4); doi: 10.3390/ijms23042187
25.
CarretteO, DemalteI, ScherlA, et al.A panel of cerebrospinal fluid potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Proteomics, 2003; 3(8):1486–1494; doi: 10.1002/pmic.200300470
26.
YaoH, SongY, ChenY, et al.Molecular architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus. Cell, 2020; 183(3):730–738.e13; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.018
27.
CantagrelV, LefeberDJ, NgBG, et al.SRD5A3 is required for converting polyprenol to dolichol and is mutated in a congenital glycosylation disorder. Cell, 2010; 142(2):203–217; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.001
28.
SimpsonRJ, LimJW, MoritzRL, et al.Exosomes: Proteomic insights and diagnostic potential. Expert Rev Proteomics, 2009; 6(3):267–283; doi: 10.1586/EPR.09.17
29.
NowakBM, KamińskiM. The productivity of medical publication on COVID-19 in the first half of 2020: A retrospective analysis of articles available in PubMed. Cureus, 2020; 12(11):e11814; doi: 10.7759/cureus.11814
30.
ÄlgåA, ErikssonO, NordbergM. The development of preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Intern Med, 2021; 290(2):480–483; doi: 10.1111/joim.13240
31.
GrayC, Infante LinaresJL, CunninghamK, et al.Scholarly productivity of us medical schools before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. South Med J, 2023; 116(10):812–818; doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001608
32.
RousseauR, Garcia-ZoritaC, Sanz-CasadoE. Publications during COVID-19 times: An unexpected overall increase. J Inform, 2023; 17(4):101461; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101461
33.
CuiR, DingH, ZhuF. Gender inequality in research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3623492
34.
MadsenEB, NielsenMW, BjørnholmJ, et al.Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19. Elife, 2022; 11(e76559); doi: 10.7554/eLife.76559
35.
MuricG, LermanK, FerraraE. Gender disparity in the authorship of biomedical research publications during the COVID-19 pandemic: Retrospective observational Study. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(4):e25379; doi: 10.2196/25379
36.
AlonT, DoepkeM, Olmstead-RumseyJ, et al.The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality. NBER Work Pap Ser, 2020; 26947; doi: 10.3386/w26947
LiuR, GanS. Childcare facility closure and exacerbated gender inequality in parenting time during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sociology, 2024; 58(4):985–1005; doi: 10.1177/00380385231224433
Graddy-ReedA, LanahanL, EyerJ. Gender discrepancies in publication productivity of high-performing life science graduate students. Res Policy, 2019; 48(9):103838; doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.103838
41.
Moss-RacusinCA, DovidioJF, BrescollVL, et al.Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012; 109(41):16474–16479.
42.
LarivièreV, NiC, GingrasY, et al.Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 2013; 504(7479):211–213.
43.
LlorensA, TzovaraA, BellierL, et al.Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions. Neuron, 2021; 109(13):2047–2074; doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.002
44.
AguilarIN, GaneshV, MannfeldR, et al.Authorship trends over the past 30-years in the annals of biomedical engineering. Ann Biomed Eng, 2019; 47(5):1171–1180; doi: 10.1007/s10439-019-02222-3
45.
RamplerE, BakerES, KirkwoodKI, et al.Empowering women and addressing underrepresentation in the field of mass spectrometry. Expert Rev Proteomics, 2022; 19(1):1–3; doi: 10.1080/14789450.2022.2039631
46.
StromgrenC. Genderize.io. Roskilde, Denmark; 2014. Available from: https://genderize.io/
47.
BendelsMHK, MüllerR, BrueggmannD, et al.Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by nature index journals. PLoS One, 2018; 13(1):e0189136; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
48.
ChatterjeeP, WernerRM. Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Netw Open, 2021; 4(7):e2114509-e2114509; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509
49.
de HaanN, WuhrerM, RuhaakLR. Mass spectrometry in clinical glycomics: The path from biomarker identification to clinical implementation. Clin Mass Spectrom, 2020; 18:1–12; doi: 10.1016/j.clinms.2020.08.001
50.
BanachP, SuchyW, DerezińskiP, et al.Mass spectrometry as a tool for biomarkers searching in gynecological oncology. Biomed Pharmacother, 2017; 92:836–842; doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.05.146
51.
ZangX, MongeME, FernándezFM. Mass spectrometry-based non-targeted metabolic profiling for disease detection: Recent developments. Trends Analyt Chem, 2019; 118:158–169; doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2019.05.030
52.
MengZ, VeenstraTD. Targeted mass spectrometry approaches for protein biomarker verification. J Proteomics, 2011; 74(12):2650–2659; doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.04.011
53.
PinheiroH, DurningM, CampbellD. Do women undertake interdisciplinary research more than men, and do self-citations bias observed differences? Quantitative Science Studies, 2022; 3(2):363–392; doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00191
54.
ShenH, XieJ, AoW, et al.The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition. J Inform, 2022; 16(1):101248; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101248
55.
BeaudryC, LarivièreV. Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Res Policy, 2016; 45(9):1790–1817; doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009
56.
JungT, EjermoO. Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: Gender, age, and education of inventors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2014; 86:110–124; doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.023
57.
MiaoS. Gender disparity in Chinese academia: A conceptual analysis through organizational theory lens. JCIHE, 2023; 15(3):126–136; doi: 10.32674/jcihe.v15i3.4614
58.
WrenJD, KozakKZ, JohnsonKR, et al.The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Rep, 2007; 8(11):988–991; doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401095
59.
MattoonER, MilesM, BroderickNA, et al.Analysis of justification for and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally. bioRxiv, 2024; 2024:582955; doi: 10.1101/2024.03.01.582955
60.
TarkangEE, KwekuM, ZotorFB. Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. J Public Health Afr, 2017; 8(1):723; doi: 10.4081/jphia.2017.723
61.
Health NIo. Research Grants: Awards by Gender and Percentage to Women. National Institution of Health; 2024.
62.
BolT, de VaanM, van de RijtA. Gender-equal funding rates conceal unequal evaluations. Res Policy, 2022; 51(1):104399; doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104399
63.
BianchiniS, LlerenaP, Öcalan-ÖzelS, et al.Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 2022; 9(1):195; doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01204-6
64.
KnowltonSE, PaganoniS, NiehausW, et al.Measuring the impact of research using conventional and alternative metrics. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2019; 98(4):331–338.
65.
ShamsiA, LundB, MansourzadehMJ. Gender disparities among highly cited researchers in biomedicine, 2014-2020. JAMA Netw Open, 2022; 5(1):e2142513-e2142513; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.42513
66.
SeboP, de LuciaS, VernazN. Gender gap in medical research: A bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals. Scientometrics, 2021; 126(1):741–755; doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03741-w
67.
LiuM, ZhangN, HuX, et al.Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature. J Informetr, 2022; 16(2):101295; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101295
68.
KwonE, YunJ, KangJ-h. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gendered research productivity and its correlates. J Informetr, 2023; 17(1):101380; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101380
69.
GiannosP, Katsikas TriantafyllidisK, ParaskevaidiM, et al.Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research. 2023.
70.
Rodríguez-NavarroA, BritoR. The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy. Scientometrics, 2022; 127(5):2871–2896; doi: 10.1007/s11192-022-04313-w
71.
CourtiouxP, MétivierF, RebériouxA. Nations ranking in scientific competition: Countries get what they paid for. Economic Modelling, 2022; 116:105976; doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105976
72.
MaliniakD, PowersR, WalterBF. The gender citation gap in international relations. Int Org, 2013; 67(4):889–922.
73.
ZhouS, ChaiS, FreemanRB. Gender homophily: In-group citation preferences and the gender disadvantage. Res Policy, 2024; 53(1):104895; doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895
74.
PotthoffM, ZimmermannF. Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations. Scientometrics, 2017; 112(2):1047–1063.
ZhangN, HeG, ShiD, et al.Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist? J Informetr, 2022; 16(1):101251; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101251
77.
TeklesA, AuspurgK, BornmannL. Same-gender citations do not indicate a substantial gender homophily bias. PLoS One, 2022; 17(9):e0274810; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274810
78.
SauderM, NewsomeK, ZagalesI, et al.Gender distribution of first and senior authorship across most cited studies within the top ten surgical journals from 2015-2020: Cementing women academic surgery representation. J Surg Res, 2022; 277:7–16; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.03.019
79.
CopenheaverCA, GoldbeckK, CherubiniP. Lack of gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochronologists: what is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Res, 2010; 66(2):127–133; doi: 10.3959/2009-10.1
80.
ThelwallM, SudP. Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia. Quant Sci Stud, 2020; 1(3):1283–1297; doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00069
81.
HuangJ, GatesAJ, SinatraR, et al.Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2020; 117(9):4609–4616; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117
KretschmerH, PudovkinA, JohannesS. Research evaluation. Part II: Gender effects of evaluation: Are men more productive and more cited than women? Scientometrics, 2012; 93(1):31–31; doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0658-0
84.
BrückO. A bibliometric analysis of the gender gap in the authorship of leading medical journals. Commun Med (Lond), 2023; 3(1):179; doi: 10.1038/s43856-023-00417-3
85.
IsphordingI, QendraiP. Gender differences in student dropout in STEM. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA); 2019.
86.
KwiekM, RoszkaW. Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration. J Informetr, 2021; 15(3):101171; doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101171
87.
KemelgorC, EtzkowitzH. Overcoming isolation: Women’s Dilemmas in American academic science. Minerva, 2001; 39(2):239–257.
88.
Bunker WhittingtonK, KingMM, CingolaniI. Structure, status, and span: Gender differences in co-authorship networks across 16 region-subject pairs (2009–2013). Scientometrics, 2024; 129(1):147–179; doi: 10.1007/s11192-023-04885-1
89.
LoveHB, StephensA, FosdickBK, et al.The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: A need to broaden and accelerate future research. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 2022; 9(1); doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01389-w
90.
RuzyckiSM, AhmedSB. Equity, diversity and inclusion are foundational research skills. Nat Hum Behav, 2022; 6(7):910–912; doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01406-7
91.
A systematic review of diversity, equity, and inclusion and antiracism training studies: Findings and future directions. Transl Behav Med, 2024; 14(3):156; doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibad061
92.
Macias GonzalezADY, McCallumS, De LoraJA. Implementing standardized diversity, equity, and inclusion approaches within scientific communities. Trends Cell Biol, 2023; 33(11):899–902; doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2023.08.006
93.
RomoJA, RokopME, Martinez-VazBM. A novel undergraduate seminar course celebrating scientific contributions by scientists from historically marginalized communities. J Microbiol Biol Educ, 2022; 23(3); doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00123-22
94.
NaiknavareR, MaiselK. Discussion-based DEI education to help create inclusive and open BME research lab environments. Biomed Eng Education, 2022; 2(2):189–195; doi: 10.1007/s43683-022-00074-3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
