Gender Disparity in Science Publishing Among PhD Students

A new survey finds a consistent gap between men and women across numerous fields of science.  

By Katarina Zimmer | November 9, 2017

ISTOCK, STURTI In agreement with previous research, a new study has found that female scientists, by and large, publish less scholarly work than men. The results were consistent across the natural, biological, and social sciences as well as in more male-dominated fields such as engineering and physical sciences.

The study, published last week (November 1) in Education Researcher, addresses several flaws in previous research on gender gaps in publishing among doctoral students. The authors note that earlier results were too generalized, being based on broad analyses of large databases polling data from multiple institutions, and did not offer a systematic comparison of publication rates of males and females at the same academic stage and within their respective fields.  

Prior methodologies have made it also difficult to determine the reasons for the gender gap. Various explanations have been put forward: A study in 2011 suggested it could be that women are saddled with more family responsibilities or more likely to end up in teaching-intensive positions. Another study in 2011 proposed that it could be gender-biased funding practices.

To address these issues, researchers drew on data from a survey of 1,285 recent PhD graduates from one large academic institution, which was not named in the study. The survey not only asked for the number of scholarly publications throughout their programs, but also included questions about the numbers of first- and solo-authored submissions. The researchers assessed the students’ satisfaction with various aspects of their program, such as advising and financial support.

They found that male doctoral students published considerably more than did their female peers, and this was a consistent phenomenon across many fields. In the engineering and physical sciences, where the disparity was largest, lead author Sarah Theule Lubienski of Indiana University tells Inside Higher Ed, male doctoral students reported submitting 7.2 research articles, whereas the figure was 5.5 for women. Men also first-authored their published work more often than women. 

Men tended to rate their relationships with their advisors and support from their research faculties more favorably than women, and this correlated with publication submissions. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that male PhD candidates may receive more mentoring during their training.

The study is in line with a general gender bias in science, including biases in hiring female STEM faculty, in science publishing overall, and even when it comes to research citations.

There still isn’t a solid explanation for the gender gap. Lubienski, who is a mathematics professor, says that universities should start taking a leading role in doing such research. “Universities should take stock of patterns on their own campus, including their female doctoral students’ research mentoring and productivity, as well as whether females are disproportionately serving as teaching assistants,” she tells Inside Higher Ed.

She considers the overall results “disturbing,” and says that more work is needed to close the gap. “[Universities] should also be sensitive to parenting responsibilities that students may have and provide the flexibility needed to balance researcher and parenting roles.”

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


November 9, 2017

I am surprised that so many articles get away with just putting everything off on some nefarious and unsubstantiated male bias. On the other hand, men, like myself, who stayed home with their families and did the majority of the child rearing are never given credit for the work we do or the effort we put out. We are always wearing the same target of being some sort of white priviledged, sexist, unconciously biased, undeserving, nepotist. For the record, I am a mixed race father of three who works from 5am-3pm most days, and spends the rest of the time with his kids. Throughout my graduate career I was constantly bombarded by funding and scholarship opportunities aimed at bringing or keeping women in science (males need not apply). I did not receive a scholarship until my publication rate (9 as a PhD) made it impossible to ignore me. I have never found a funding opportunity aimed at child-rearing males, but was told I could not take paternal leave when my children were born. We lived near or on campus to make things work. During my post-doctoral career I also saw many women who I thought would make excellent scientists quit the field. Not because they felt there was some sort of bias that would work against them, but because they valued having a stable life with opportunities to engage in different activities over the uncertainty and required focus of a scientific career. Male or female, we all know most PI's work more hours than they would in any other job. It's a sacrifice that one has to choose to make, and one major bias in our society is that men have to provide for their families. If you don't you are not valued. That is strong motivation for many males to persist in a difficult work field. but I also wonder if the real reason men are more likely to stay in science than women is because they are also more likely to gamble. Indeed. many white collar careers where there is a gender bias are associated with a great deal of uncertainty. I'm not saying there is no sexim in any work place, but study after study shows that men are more than twice as likely to gamble as women, and pursuing a career in science is one of the biggest gambles an individual can make. By the way, the idea for males gambling more in their career choices came from some studies I am reading that serendipitously are by predominantly female researchers. Maybe they have some incite we should consider when thinking about these issues rather than attributing everything to nepotistic sexism.

A comparative study of men and women gamblers in Victoria. Nerilee Hinga , Alex Russella , Barry Tolchardb & Lia Nower. 2014

Risk Factors for Gambling Problems: an anlysis by gender. Alex Russella , Barry Tolchardb & Lia Nower. 2016

Gambling Harm and Crime Careers. 2017.

  • Corinne May-Chahal, 
  • Leslie Humphreys
  • Alison Clifton
  • Brian Francis
  • Gerda Reith


Avatar of: dumbdumb


Posts: 99

November 16, 2017

male PhD candidates may receive more mentoring during their training


total bull$%!t

Popular Now

  1. Could Rapamycin Help Humans Live Longer?
  2. Renowned Physicist Stephen Hawking Dies
  3. Pupil Response to an Optical Illusion Tied to Autistic Traits
  4. John Sulston, Human Genome Project Leader, Dies