Despite recent advances, gender inequality persists in many scientific fields, and Psychology is not alien to this phenomenon. This study presents the evolution of gender composition in American Psychological Association publications in the past six decades, from 1963 to 2016. Longitudinal analysis revealed an important change: women rose from a tiny 12% to 14% in the 1960s to almost gender parity in the last decade (2010s). The pattern of collaboration (coauthorship) shows that women tend to be slightly overrepresented as first author and underrepresented as the last or senior author. In the last two decades, women outnumber men as “new” American Psychological Association authors (authors who publish for the first time in an American Psychological Association journal). These features and the fact that men’s publications tend to encompass a much wider range of years suggest that age may play a role in the gender composition of American Psychological Association contributors.
American Psychological Association. (2006). Women in the American Psychological Association.
Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
Washington, DC:
Author.
3.
American Psychological Association. (2017). 2017 journal catalog.
Washington, DC:
Author.
4.
American Psychological Association (Committee on Women in Psychology). (2017). The changing gender composition of psychology: Update and expansion of the 1995 task force report.
Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/women/programs/gender-composition/index.aspx
5.
BarriosM.VillarroyaA.BorregoA. (2013).
Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics,
95(1), 15–23. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0816-4
6.
BoiceR.ShaughnessyP.PeckerG. (1985).
Women and publishing in psychology. American Psychologist,
40(5), 577. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.5.577
7.
CarnahanS.KryscynskiD.OlsonD. (2017).
When does corporate social responsibility reduce employee turnover? Evidence from attorneys before and after 9/11. Academy of Management Journal,
60(5), 1932–1962. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0032
8.
CaveroJ. M.VelaB.CáceresP.CuestaC.Sierra-AlonsoA. (2015).
The evolution of female authorship in computing research. Scientometrics,
103(1), 85–100. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1520-3
9.
CummingG.SiddleD.HyslopW. (1997).
Psychological science in Australia. International Journal of Psychology,
32(6), 409–424. doi:10.1080/002075997400656
10.
D'AmicoR.VermigliP.CanettoS. S. (2011).
Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: The case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
4(3), 175. doi:10.1037/a0022570
11.
European Commission. (2016). She Figures. 2015—Gender in research and innovation [EU Commission—Working Document]. Luxembourg, Germany: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2777/744106
12.
González-AlvarezJ. (2017).
Gender of Personality and Individual Differences (PAID) contributors: An analysis of recent years (2008–2016). Personality and Individual Differences,
117, 106–110. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.044
13.
González-AlvarezJ. (2018).
Author gender in The Lancet journals. The Lancet,
391(10140), 2601. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31139-5
14.
González‐AlvarezJ.Cervera-CrespoT. (2017).
Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis. Journal of Informetrics,
11(1), 232–243. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007
15.
González-AlvarezJ.Cervera-CrespoT. (2019).
Contemporary psychology and women: A gender analysis of the scientific production. International Journal of Psychology,
54(1), 135–143. doi:10.1002/ijop.12433
16.
González‐AlvarezJ.Palomar‐GarcíaM. (2014).
Twenty‐two years of psychological science in Psychological Science. International Journal of Psychology,
49(1), 56–60. doi:10.1002/ijop.12009
17.
GuyerL.FidellL. (1973).
Publications of men and women psychologists: Do women publish less?American Psychologist,
28(2), 157. doi:10.1037/h0034240
18.
JagsiR.GuancialE. A.WorobeyC. C.HenaultL. E.ChangY.StarrR., … HylekE. M. (2006).
The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—a 35-year perspective. The New England Journal of Medicine,
355(3), 281–287. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053910
19.
KlieglR.BatesD. (2011).
International collaboration in psychology is on the rise. Scientometrics,
87(1), 149–158. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0299-0
20.
KuchynkaS. L.SalomonK.BossonJ. K.El-HoutM.KiebelE.CoopermanC.ToomeyR. (2018).
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism and College Women’s STEM Outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
42(1), 72–87.
21.
LarivièreV.NiC.GingrasY.CroninB.SugimotoC. R. (2013).
Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature,
504(7479), 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a
22.
MalouffJ.SchutteN.PriestJ. (2010).
Publication rates of Australian academic psychologists. Australian Psychologist,
45(2), 78–83. doi:10.1080/00050060903078536
23.
MansourA. M.ShieldsC. L.MaaloufF. C.MassoudV. A.JurdyL.MathysenD. G., . . . AclimandosW. (2012).
Five-decade profile of women in leadership positions at ophthalmic publications. Archives of Ophthalmology,
130(11), 1441–1446. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.2300
24.
MauleónE.BordonM. (2006).
Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics,
66(1), 199–218. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0014-3
25.
MeerwijkE. L.SeveliusJ. M. (2017).
Transgender population size in the United States: A meta-regression of population-based probability samples. American Journal of Public Health,
107(2), e1–e8.
26.
MeierS. C.LabuskiC. M. (2013). The demographics of the transgender population. In Baumle, A. K. (Ed.). In International handbook on the demography of sexuality (pp. 289–327).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
27.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012).
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
109(41), 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109
28.
NievaV. F.GutekB. A. (1980).
Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review,
5(2), 267–276. doi:10.5465/amr.1980.4288749
29.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015a). Education at a glance. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/eag-2015-en
30.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015b). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/sti scoreboard-2015-en
31.
PaludiM. A.BauerW. D. (1983).
Goldberg revisited: What’s in an author's name. Sex Roles,
9(3), 387–390. doi:10.1007/BF00289673
32.
PerssonO. D.DanellR.Wiborg-SchneiderJ. (2009).
How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In AstromF.DanellR.LarsenB.SchneiderJ. (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9–24).
Leuven, Belgium:
International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Retrieved from http://www8.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/
33.
PionG. M.MednickM. T.AstinH. S.HallC. C. I.KenkelM. B.KeitaG. P., . . . KelleherJ. C. (1996).
The shifting gender composition of psychology: Trends and implications for the discipline. American Psychologist,
51(5), 509. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.5.509
34.
QuayleM.GreerM. (2014).
Mapping the state of the field of social psychology in Africa and patterns of collaboration between African and international social psychologists. International Journal of Psychology,
49(6), 498–502.
35.
RobnettR. D. (2016).
Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
40(1), 65–79.
36.
ShenH. (2013).
Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature,
495(7439), 22–24. doi:10.1038/495022a
37.
SotudehH.KhoshianN. (2014).
Gender differences in science: The case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007. Scientometrics,
98(1), 457–472. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1031-7
38.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). UNESCO science report. Towards 2030.
Paris, France:
Author.
39.
VelaB.CáceresP.CaveroJ. M. (2012).
Participation of women in software engineering publications. Scientometrics,
93(3), 661–669. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0774-x
40.
WaltmanL. (2012).
An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics,
6(4), 700–711. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008
41.
WestJ. D.JacquetJ.KingM. M.CorrellS. J.BergstromC. T. (2013).
The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One,
8(7), e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212
42.
WillyardC. (2011).
Men: A growing minority. GradPSYCH Magazine,
9(1), 40.
43.
YunE. J.YoonD. Y.KimB.MoonJ. Y.YoonS. J.HongS. J.BaekS. (2015).
Closing the gender gap: Increased female authorship in AJR and radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology,
205(2), 237–241. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.14225
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.
