Sociology Compass - 2024 - Wu - The Gender Citation Gap Approaches Explanations and Implications

Received: 19 April 2023 Revised: 10 January 2024 Accepted: 23 January 2024
DOI: 10.1111/soc4.13189
REVIEW ARTICLE
The gender citation gap: Approaches,

explanations, and implications
Cary Wu
Department of Sociology, York University,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada Abstract
Do women face a disadvantage in terms of citation rates, and
Correspondence
Cary Wu.
if so, in what ways? This article provides a comprehensive
Email: carywu@yorku.ca overview of existing research on the relationship between
gender and citations. Three distinct approaches are identi-
fied: (1) per-article approach that compares gender differ-
ences in citations between articles authored by men and
women, (2) per-author approach that compares the aggregate
citation records of men and women scholars over a specified
period or at the career level, and (3) reference-ratio approach
that assesses the gender distribution of references in arti-
cles written by men and women. I show that articles written
by women receive comparable or even higher rates of cita-
tions than articles written by men. However, women tend
to accumulate fewer citations over time and at the career
level. Contrary to the notion that women are cited less per
article due to gender-based bias in research evaluation or
citing behaviors, this study suggests that the primary reason
for the lower citation rates at the author level is women
publishing fewer articles over their careers. Understanding
and addressing the gender citation gap at the author level
should therefore focus on women's lower research produc-
tivity over time and the contributing factors. To conclude, I
discuss the potential detrimental impact of lower citations
on women's career progression and the ways to address the
issue to mitigate gender inequalities in science.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2024 The Authors. Sociology Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass. 2024;e13189. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 1 of 18

https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13189
17519020, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.13189 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [22/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 18 WU
KEYWORDS
gender, inequality, science, women
1 | INTRODUCTION
It is becoming increasingly popular that scientists now include citation count, the number of citations received by their
published work, in their CVs. This is partially due to the growing availability of citation data including from sources
such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and ResearchGate. More importantly, it is because citation count is
frequently seen as a measure of research productivity and influence, thereby preparing scholars for hiring, funding,
promotion, tenure, and salary decisions (see also Ceci et al., 2014; Ferber & Brün, 2011; King et al., 2017). However,
Merton (1977, 1988) who first drew sociological attention to citations, Garfield (1977) who created the Science Cita-
tion Index (SCI), and many others have repeatedly cautioned against the use of simple citation counts for evaluative
purposes. The danger of playing “the citation game” lies in the fact that the number of citations scholars garner is not
always a function of their research quality and productivity (Aksnes et al., 2019; Dougherty & Horne, 2022; but see
Thelwall et al., 2022). Instead, it can also be predicted based on status characteristics including, for example, racial
and ethnic identity, country of origin as well as institution affiliation (see e.g., Bornmann & Daniel, 2008; Leimu &
Koricheva, 2005; Nettasinghe et al., 2021; Rubin, 2022; Tahamtan et al., 2016). For this reason, the use and misuse
of citations for assessment purposes carry a risk of worsening disparities in science.
A large and growing body of research has considered the role of gender in shaping scholars' citation count. In
this article, I present a comprehensive overview of the existing research on the relationship between gender and
citations. I identify three distinct approaches to the study of gender and citations. One approach focuses on gender
differences in per article citations comparing female-authored articles and male-authored articles. A second approach
focuses on gender differences in per author citations comparing men and women scholars' aggregate records of cita-
tions over a specified period or at the career level. A third approach focuses on the reference lists and compares the
gender distribution of references between articles written by men and women. I show that there is a clear gender
gap in citations at the author-level: academic women accrue a lower number of citations than men. In fact, the gap
is well documented across fields, national contexts, and over time (e.g., Ceci et al., 2014; Duch et al., 2012; Huang
et al., 2020; Larivière et al., 2013; Long, 1992; Odic & Wojcik, 2020). At the article level, however, there is no
clear gap. While some studies of some fields find that women are cited less per article (e.g, Larivière et al., 2013;
Mohammad et al., 2020), or are under-cited per reference lists (Håkanson, 2005; Lutz, 1990), more studies find
that articles written by women receive comparable, sometimes even higher rates, than articles written by men (e.g.,
Healy, 2015; Huang et al., 2020; Leahey et al., 2017; Long, 1992).
Various explanations have been proposed for the gender and citation relationship. I distinguish between expla-
nations at the article level that focus dominantly on the roles gender may play in research evaluation and citing
behaviors, and explanations at the career level that highlight factors that disadvantage women's research productivity
and research impact over time. The often-found small and non-significant gender difference in per-article citations
suggests that the gender gap in total citations at the career level may not be due to the quality or under-evaluation of
the quality of women's research, or gender-based discrimination and less favorable assessments of women as schol-
ars (see also Lynn et al., 2019; Thelwall & Sud, 2020). Instead, efforts to explain the gender citation gap at the author
level and to find solutions should focus on examining factors that disadvantage women's research productivity and
therefore citation counts over the career course (Leahey et al., 2008; Rubin, 2022; Wu, 2023).
In the final section, I briefly examine how the gender citation gap can impact the visibility of women in science
and contribute to the perpetuation of the gender wage gap within the field. Empirical research on the implications of
the gender citation gap has been limited. It is my hope that this discussion will inspire further exploration of how the
gender citation gap may contribute to the persistence of various forms of gender inequality in science.
WU 3 of 18
2 | GENDER AND CITATIONS: THREE APPROACHES
Table 1 provides an overview of decades of research that have considered the relationship between gender and cita-
tions. The list is not meant to be an all-inclusive compilation of published studies. However, it does offer a thorough
overview of the existing research on the subject. The table shows that scholars have studied the gender and citation
relationship within a wide range of disciplines, including Economics, International Relations, and Life Sciences as well
as the broader realm of science in general. Scholars have also taken three different approaches to the gender and
citation relationships, which I label as per-article approach, reference-ratio approach, and per-author approach. In
what follows, I discuss each in turn.
2.1 | Per-article approach
One popular approach is to focus on published articles where researchers categorize them based on the gender of
the dominant author (i.e., first or last author), and subsequently investigate whether there are differences in citations
to articles written by different genders. For example, Larivière et al. (2013) analyze 5,483,841 research papers and
review articles with 27,329,915 authorships and find all articles with women in dominant author positions receive
fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. In contrast, analyzing citations per paper in all 27 broad
Scopus fields from 1996 to 2014 in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA, Thelwall (2020)
finds that although the gap is small and varies across fields and over time, female first-authored standard journal
articles have been slightly more cited than male first-authored standard journal articles in all countries except the
USA, where there has been no practical difference. Symonds et al. (2006) find no difference in the median number
of citations per paper for males and females when examining the publication records of a cohort of 168 life scientists
in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology. Lynn et al. (2019) also find that male- and female-authored articles
accrue citations at a comparable rate in their analysis of roughly 10,000 publications (single and coauthored) in flag-
ship and regional journals in economics, political science, and sociology over a two-decade time period (1983–2003).
2.2 | Per-author approach
A second approach is to focus on authors where scholars compare total citations at the career level or average citations
over a period for academic men and women. For example, Huang et al. (2020) perform a bibliometric analysis of over 1.5
million gender-identified authors whose publishing career ended between 1955 and 2010, covering 83 countries and 13
disciplines to offer a comprehensive picture of longitudinal gender differences in total citation counts. They find that male
scientists receive 30% more citations for their publications than female scientists and the gender gap persists in almost
all countries and all disciplines as well as across all affiliations regardless of affiliation rank (Huang et al., 2020). Even more
concerning is that the gender gap in citation counts has increased significantly over the last 60 years, from a slightly bias
toward female authors in the 1950s to a 34% gap favoring male authors in the 2000s. Decades ago, Long (1992) found
that while papers authored by women on average received more citations than those authored by men, women receive
lower rates of total citation count than men. More recently, my analysis of two different datasets, one including paper and
citation information for over 130,000 highly cited scholars during the 1996–2020 period and another including citation
and salary information for nearly 2000 Canadian scholars over the 2014–2019 period, also shows that papers written by
women on average receive more citations than those written by men. But women overall have fewer citations, and this
gender citation gap grows larger with time as men and women progress in their careers (Wu, 2023).
2.3 | Reference-ratio approach
A third approach is to study the reference lists of published articles with women or men in dominant author positions.
This involves two major steps. First, among a pool of articles, researchers will calculate the gender proportions of the
4 of 18 WU
TA B L E 1 An overview of gender and citations research.
Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Ferber 1986 Economics Per article Significant 1. S ame-gender scholars cited
more by authors;
2. Gender gap not due to subject
differences.
Hutson 2006 Archaeology Per article No gap 1. A
large portion of citations
are to writers that have
connections to the author.
Borsuk et al. 2009 Ecology Per article No gap 1. A
uthor gender does not play a
significant role in researchers'
decisions on which literature
to cite.
Maliniak et al. 2013 International Per article Significant 1. W omen are systematically cited
relations less than men;
2. Productivity, institutional
affiliation, publication venue, or
epistemology cannot account
for this gap.
Zigerell 2015 International Per article Small 1. T
he gender citation gap is
relations largely limited to elite papers.
Bendels 2017 Life sciences, Per article Significant 1. F emale-authored articles less
earth & cited;
environmental 2. Gender citation gap increases
and Chemistry with multiple authors.
Esarey & Bryant 2018 Political science Per article No gap 1. F emale authors not
disadvantaged in citation rates;
2. More co-authors linked to
higher citation count.
Dion et al. 2018 Political science Per article Significant 1. F emale scholars cite more
and social female peers;
science 2. Gender diversity reduces
methodology citation gaps.
fields
Mishra et al. 2018 General Per article No gap 1. C areer disruptions reduce
citation visibility, especially for
women;
2. Gender effect linked to
attrition, not specialization;
3. Prior publication count reduces
gender effect.
Cotropia & 2018 Law Per article Women more 1. F
emale authors coauthor
Petherbridge cited more; citation gap remains
unexplained.
Andersen et al. 2019 Medicine Per article No gap 1. Near-identical per-paper
citation impact for women and
men in first and last author
positions when adjusting
for self-citations, number
of authors, international
collaboration and journal
prestige
WU 5 of 18
TA B L E 1 (Continued)
Huang et al. 2020 Radiology Per article Significant 1. F emale primary authors receive
fewer citations than men;
2. Citation gap between genders
decreasing.
Lynn et al. 2019 Sociology and Per article No gap 1. W
hen male and female
social sciences authors publish articles that
are comparably positioned
to receive citations, their
publications do accrue citations
at the same rate.
Mohammad 2020 Natural language Per article Significant 1. F emale first authors are cited
et al. Processing less than male first authors,
research even when controlling for
experience and area of
research;
2. Their papers from the early
years received more citations
than those of male first authors
from the same period;
3. The gender gap is likely due
to factors beyond differences
in academic age and choice of
research area;
4. Self-citation cannot explain the
gender gap.
Chatterjee 2021 Medicine Per article Significant 1. A
rticles written by women in
high-impact medical journals
had fewer citations than those
written by men, particularly
when women wrote together as
primary and senior authors.
Sebo and Clair 2023 Medicine Per article Significant 1. A
rticles whose first and last
authors were women were the
least cited and those whose
first and last authors were men
were the most cited.
Østby et al. 2013 Political science/ Per article No gap 1. N
o gender bias in terms of
Peace citation counts.
research
Atchison 2017 Political science Per article No gap 1. W
omen's research is cited at
similar rates as men's when
their work is freely available
online.
Grossbard et al. 2020 Demographic Per article Women more 1. Female-authored articles
economics cited receive more citations than
male-authored articles;
2. Having a female co-author is
associated with a large increase
in the number of citations,
while having a male co-author
is not.
(Continues)
6 of 18 WU
Nielsen 2017 Management Per article/ Negligible/ 1. W omen management scholars

reference women have slight citation advantage.
ratio more cited 2. Women more likely to author
highly cited articles.
3. Women are cited more often
than men in Canada.
Caplar et al. 2017 Astronomy Per article/ Significant 1. M ale first authors receive more
reference citations than females;
ratio 2. Difference decreasing over
time;
3. Female self-citation effect
disappears with controls.
Healy 2015 Philosophy Per article/ No gap 1. A rticles by women are not cited
Reference less often than articles by men;
ratio 2. The very low base rate of
articles by women among top
cited papers that creates the
gap.
Dion et al. 2018 Political science Per article/ Negligible 1. M en are not more likely to
Reference cite their previous work than
ratio women;
2. The number of article authors
and the seniority of the authors
(age and total citations) help
account for the variance in
self-citations.
Teich et al. 2022 Physics journals Per article/ Significant 1. P apers authored by women are
Reference significantly under-cited, and
ratio papers authored by men are
significantly over-cited;
2. Citation inequity is especially
strong for citing papers within
the broad category of 'general'
physics (citation venue)
Lutz 1990 Anthropology Reference ratio Significant 1. F emale author citation rate lags
production;
2. Difference remains without
self-citations.
McElhinny et al. 2003 Sociolinguistics Reference ratio Significant 1. T he gender citation gap
and linguistic has widened over the last
anthropology 2 decades;
2. Self citation is not the
explanation.
Håkanson 2005 Library science Reference ratio Significant 1. T
he share of women authors
does not impact the gender
gap.
Ferber & Brün 2011 Economics Reference ratio Significant 1. G ender affects citation and
collaboration;
2. Women may face co-authorship
challenges;
3. Gender can influence research
topics.
WU 7 of 18
Mitchell et al. 2013 International Reference ratio Significant 1. M ale authors cite fewer female
relations scholars;
2. Mixed-gender teams also cite
fewer female scholars.
King et al. 2017 General Reference ratio Significant 1. M en self-cite more; women less
likely to self-cite;
2. Gender gap in self-citation rate
stable over 50 years.
Dworkin et al. 2020 Neuroscience Reference ratio Significant 1. R eference lists include more
papers with men as first and
last author than would be
expected;
2. Papers with men as first and
last author overcite other MM
papers.
3. Men are less likely to cite work
by women
Wang et al. 2021 Communication Reference ratio Significant 1. T
he citation imbalance in
reference lists favors men as
first and last authors, driven
largely by men's citation
practices, and is slowly
decreasing over time.
Fulvio et al. 2021 Neuroscience Reference ratio Significant 1. T he underrepresentation of
women-led publications in
reference sections is also
characteristic of papers
published over the past decade;
2. This pattern of citation
imbalances is present regardless
of author gender, implicating
systemic factors.
Ward et al. 1992 Sociology Reference ratio No gap, or 1. W omen cite women's work and
women gender articles more heavily
cited more. than men;
2. Author gender has no impact
on citations by men.
Geraci et al. 2015 Psychology Per author Significant 1. F
emale professors had an
average lower h index than
male professors.
(Continues)
8 of 18 WU
Huang et al. 2020 General Per author Significant 1. T he increase of participation of

women over the past 60 years
was accompanied by an
increase of gender differences
in both productivity and impact;
2. Men and women publish at a
comparable annual rate and
have equivalent career-wise
impact for the same size body
of work;
3. Differences in career length
and dropout rates explain much
of the reported gender gap in
productivity and impact.
Odic and Wojcik 2020 Psychology Per author Significant 1. W omen publish less, and their
work is also disproportionally
cited less by others in the field;
2. Women are less likely to engage
in networking opportunities;
3. No evidence that the rate
of publication for individual
subfields can account for the
observed publication gap.
Nettasinghe 2021 General Per author Significant 1. G ender disparities exist in
et al. citation recognition, with
female authors receiving less
recognition than male authors;
2. Authors from top-ranked
institutions receive more
recognition than others;
3. Reducing homophily, adding
new authors to a research field,
and balanced group sizes can
reduce inequality.
Lerman et al. 2022 National Academy Per author Significant 1. G
ender disparities in the
of sciences patterns of peer citations are
strong enough to accurately
predict the scholar's gender
Rajkó et al. 2023 Communication Per author Significant 1. F
emale scholars' papers are
systematically more viewed,
yet significantly less cited than
male scholarship
Wu 2023 General Per author/Per Significant 1. P apers written by women on
article average receive more citations
than those written by men;
2. The gender citation gap grows
larger with time as men and
women progress in their
careers, but the opposite
pattern holds when research
productivity and collaborative
networks are considered.
WU 9 of 18
authors, representing the proportions of male- and female-authored articles among the pool that the authors could
have cited. Second, researchers will analyze reference lists for selected papers and compare the observed number of
cited papers with women or men in dominant author positions and then further compare this number to the number
that would be expected if references were drawn randomly from the pool. For example, to investigate gender imbal-
ance in reference lists of neuroscience research articles Dworkin et al. (2020) analyzed 61,416 articles published in
five top neuroscience journals since 1995 and categorized them into four author gender groups: MM (men as both
first and last authors and sole-author papers by men), WM (woman first author and man last author), MW (man first
author and woman last author), and WW (woman as both first and last authors and sole-author paper by women).
Next, they focused on the reference lists of papers published between 2009 and 2018 (31,418 articles) and identified
the gender of the cited authors. Excluding self-citations (citing one's own paper), they found that reference lists tend
to cite more papers by men than expected based on overall authorship proportions. This gender imbalance is largely
driven by the citation practices of men and has been getting worse over time as the field becomes more diverse
(Dworkin et al., 2020). Fulvio et al. (2021) use a similar approach and find that women-led publications are under-
represented in the reference sections of papers published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Interestingly,
this pattern of citation imbalances was observed regardless of the gender of the authors of the citing paper, suggest-
ing that systemic factors are likely contributing to this gender imbalance in citation practices (Fulvio et al., 2021).
However, some studies did not find a citation gap. Analyzing articles published in Social Problems (a leading journal
in sociology) and their reference lists, Ward et al. (1992) find that women cite women's work more heavily than men
and author gender has no impact on citations by men.
When considering the collective evidence, it becomes apparent that while specific studies in particular fields
suggest that women may receive fewer citations per article or face underrepresentation in reference lists (e.g.,
Bendels et al., 2018; Larivière et al., 2011; Maliniak et al., 2013; Teich et al., 2022), a substantial body of research
adopting either the per-article approach or the reference-ratio approach reveals either the absence of a gender gap
or, in some cases, an advantage for women in terms of citations (e.g., Borrego et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2013;
Copenheaver et al., 2010; Duch et al., 2012; González-Alvarez, 2017; Healy, 2015; Leahey et al., 2017; Long, 1992;
Nielsen, 2017; Peñas & Willett, 2006; Thelwall, 2019; Van den Besselaar & Sandström, 2017; Ward et al., 1992).
In contrast, studies that follow the per-author approach have consistently shown that academic women accrue a
lower number of citations than academic men (e.g., Ceci et al., 2014; Duch et al., 2012; Larivière et al., 2013; Odic &
Wojcik, 2020; Wu, 2023).
3 | EXPLAINING THE GENDER CITATION GAP
Diverse perspectives on the correlation between gender and citation patterns have given rise to a range of inter-
pretations and explanations. Per-article and reference-ratio approaches often have “articles” as the unit of analysis.
When women's articles are found to be less cited, scholars have often explained the observed pattern through the
roles gender may play in research evaluation or citing behaviors including women's research being undervalued,
women's underrepresentation (and therefore there are fewer women-authored articles to be cited), and a gender
homophily effect that scholars are more likely to cite the work of someone of their gender.
3.1 | Article-level explanations
Women's research is undervalued. Many scholars suggest that women's research is less cited because their research
is often undervalued. In this view, there is unconscious bias that exists in academia such as the belief that men hold
greater authority or that women are less competent, resulting in undervaluation of women's research and reduced
citations to their published research (Dion et al., 2018; Smith & Garrett-Scott, 2021). In particular, feminist scholars
have highlighted that citation practices in academia are not neutral and they are deeply entwined with power relations
10 of 18 WU
within academia, as minority scholars including women and scholars of color have been consistently under-cited
(Ahmed, 2017; Hemmings, 2011; Nash, 2020). On the other hand, many studies suggest that author gender does not
play a significant role in researchers' decisions on which literature to cite (e.g., Atchison, 2017; Borsuk et al., 2009;
Esarey & Bryant, 2018). Lynn et al. (2019) argue that citation behavior appears to be predominantly influenced by the
quality of the published work rather than biased assessments of research based on the gender of the authors. They
believe that women can produce the same quality research as men do, and therefore gender does not matter for
the per article citations. In particular, various forms of discrimination including “taste-based discrimination”, “biased
assessments of competence”, and “biased assessments of commitment” are often irrelevant or muted when scholars
decide whether or not to cite a paper (Lynn et al., 2019, p. 539).
Women's underrepresentation. Some scholars point out that women's research is less cited because there are
fewer women in science (Chatterjee et al., 2021; Ferber & Brün, 2011). Women remain underrepresented in many
fields, and this means that there are fewer women scholars whose work can be cited. Ferber and Brün (2011) find that
the increasing representation of women in economics has helped reduce women's disadvantage in garnering citations
in both labor economics and economics in general. However, many studies show that higher women representation
do not seem to have any impact on the gender difference in citations, and the citation gap is even greater in fields
where there are more women. For example, Eagly and Miller (2016) find that in the US psychology where there have
been more women than men, women receive roughly 20% fewer citations, a gap that is much larger that the aver-
age gap across fields. Investigating four fields with unusual proportions of female researchers in the United States,
Thelwall (2018) also reported a similar pattern that the field with the highest proportion of women and the largest
increase in the proportion of women has a male citation advantage (Veterinary), while the field with a low proportion
of women and a low increase in female share has no gender citation advantage (Orthopedics and Sports Medicine)
and one field with a female citation advantage also has a high increase in female share, albeit from a low-medium
base (Surgery). These studies suggest that fields with relatively many women did not favor woman-led research with
more citations (Håkanson, 2005; Thelwall & Nevill, 2019; Thelwall & Sud, 2020).
Homophily. Scholars have proposed a gender homophily effect, suggesting that researchers are more inclined
to cite the work of individuals of their own gender, and this phenomenon could contribute to an understanding of
why women's research may receive comparatively fewer citations (Ferber, 1986; Mitchell et al., 2013; Nettasinghe
et al., 2021). Rothstein and Davey (1995) argue that men researchers tend to have largely men networks whereas
women tend to have largely women networks, and scientists often cite each other's work in their networks. More
recently, Dion et al. (2018) find that a published article is more likely to cite a women-authored paper if that article is
itself authored by women. If men are more likely to cite other men, and women are more likely to cite other women,
this then disadvantages women in accumulating citations since women authors represent a minority of researchers
in most fields. However, in their replication of Dion et al.’s (2018) study, Esarey and Bryant (2018) demonstrate that
articles with at least one women author receive citations at a comparable rate to those authored by men, once adjust-
ments are made for variables such as the publishing journal and the number of authors involved. Further, if homophily
plays a role in scholars' decisions to cite, the increase in the share of women in academia over time should narrow
the gender citation gap. As we have discussed, this is not the case. Some studies even find that the increase in the
share of women in authorship has led to an increase of gender differences in both productivity and impact (Huang
et al., 2020; Mohammad et al., 2020).
Gender bias in self-citing. Differences in citations to articles written by men and women could also reflect gender
differences in self-citing. Research shows that men tend to self-cite their own work more than women do (Andersen
et al., 2019; King et al., 2017). King et al. (2017) find that men cited their own papers 56% more than did women. But
they also acknowledge that men's higher self-citation rates could come from differences in the number of papers that
men and women authors have published rather than gender-specific patterns of self-citation behavior. Indeed, there
are also studies that show gender has little impact on self-citation (e.g., Azoulay & Lynn, 2020; Caplar et al., 2017).
As an illustration, Mishra et al. (2018) conducted a recent replication of King et al.’s (2017) study, analyzing a sample
of 1.6 million papers. Their findings reveal that gender exhibits the weakest impact on the probability of self-citation,
WU 11 of 18
even when accounting for an extensive set of controlled features. Moreover, some studies even suggest that at the
article level, women authors tend to engage in self-citation more frequently (Caplar et al., 2017).
As we can see, these article-level explanations are mostly contradictory. Since women are not, on average, being
cited less per each paper they produce, these article-level explanations that focus on gender-based bias and patterns
in research evaluation and citing behaviors may not be the reasons why women are at a disadvantage at the author
level. For this reason, Thewall and Sud (2020a: 1295) have recently suggested that “energy should not be spent on
looking for gender citing biases through gender homophily in citing and it should not be assumed that the papers of
female authors will be overlooked when they are a minority within a field.”
3.2 | Author-level explanations
When viewed at the author level, there is a significant gender gap in citations. This gap does not seem to come
from women's research being undervalued or gender-based bias in citing behaviors given that men and women do
not receive significantly different citation rates per each article, Research productivity is an apparent reason. The
gender gap in total citations could come from differences in the number of articles men and women publish (Larivière
et al., 2013; Leahey, 2006; Xie & Shauman, 1998). Ceci et al. (2014) explain that, compared with men, women publish
fewer papers, leading to their reduced opportunities to receive citations. Huang et al. (2020) also show that while
men and women publish a comparable number of papers per year when they are both active and have an equivalent
career-wise impact for the same total number of publications, throughout a career, women publish fewer articles and
therefore accumulate fewer citations. Productivity is one of the single best predictors for total citations. Greater arti-
cle output not only increases citations but also leads to heightened recognition of scholars and their research among
peers, often resulting in more frequent citations (Leahey, 2007).
Women's lower research productivity may also help explain their lower total self-citations (King et al., 2017).
Even women do not self-cite less at the article level, but over time they could lose out self-citations due to their lower
number of published articles. For example, Mishra et al. (2018) find that self-citation is the hallmark of productive
authors for both genders, and therefore papers by authors with short, disrupted, or diverse careers miss out on the
initial boost in visibility gained from self-citations. This disproportionately affects women because of attrition and not
because of disciplinary under-specialization (Mishra et al., 2018). Women's lower research productivity and therefore
lower citations can also explain why they are underrepresented especially at higher academic ranks and as being
highly prolific scholars (Fox & Nikivincze, 2021; Wijesingha & Ramos, 2017; Wijesingha & Robson, 2021), which leads
to their underrepresentation in highly impactful journal (Chatterjee et al., 2021; Esarey & Bryant, 2018). All these in
turn contribute to women's fewer accumulated citations.
There are many reasons why women publish less over the career course. For example, women's lack of research
collaborations with local or national and international colleagues can create negative influences particularly on
their productivity and research impact in the long run (Ceci et al., 2014; Geraci et al., 2015). It is documented that
men and women are more likely to form gender-homophilous ties in developing research collaborations (Holman
& Morandin, 2019; Kwiek and Roszka, 2021). Although this homophily in research collaboration might not directly
influence citations at the article level, its influence can manifest in research productivity over time, thereby exerting
an impact on the overall count of citations. To this end, Lee and Bozeman (2005) show that collaboration is a strong
predictor of publishing productivity when assessed by the total number of publications, but not when assessed by
dividing credit by the number of coauthors. This means that homophily may work to affect both research productivity
and citations over time and only at the aggregated level.
Women's lower levels of specialization could also hinder their research productivity since specializing helps
scholars publish more, and women specialize less (Leahey, 2006; Leahey et al., 2008). In particular, family roles and
differences in greater service responsibilities for female scientists throughout a career could disadvantage women in
publishing and accumulating citations. Research productivity growth often declines due to family responsibilities and
12 of 18 WU
other reasons, and this is especially true for women (Hunter & Leahey, 2010; Larivière et al., 2011; but see Aiston &
Jung, 2016). Women's shorter publishing career lengths and higher dropout rates can also contribute to their lower
research productivity. Huang et al. (2020) point out that women also tend to spend less time in academia, and this
could affect their research productivity and research networks. Using the entire population of professors at univer-
sities in the province of Quebec (Canada), Larivière et al. (2011) show that, after the age of 38, women are at a slight
disadvantage in terms of citations of their publications for reasons including (1) women have more restricted collab-
oration networks, (2) women's might shoulder more family responsibilities, (3) women's disadvantaged positions in
the rank within the hierarchy of the scientific community and access to resources, as well as (4) women's choice of
research topics and level of specialization. Taken together, efforts to explain why women receive fewer citations and
to find solutions should focus on examining factors that disadvantage women's research productivity and therefore
citation counts over the career course (Leahey et al., 2008; Lynn et al., 2019; Rubin, 2022; Thelwall & Sud, 2020;
Wu, 2023).
4 | THE GENDER CITATION GAP MATTERS
The fewer citations accumulated by women can have significant implications for their career prospects and contrib-
ute to gender inequalities in science. However, there has been limited empirical research that examines the ramifica-
tions of women's lower citation rates. In what follows, I discuss only briefly how the gender citation gap may affect
women's visibility and perpetuate the gender wage gap in science. I hope that this will encourage further exploration
of how the gender citation gap might contribute to the persistence of various forms of gender inequalities in science.
4.1 | Women's visibility in science
Citations can be a measure of visibility, impact, and recognition. Women's fewer citations can lead to the impression
that women's research is less impactful, making their work less recognized and valued, their contributions to the
field undervalued, and their ideas and perspectives less likely to be incorporated into the broader conversation.
Since citations are frequently employed as an indicator of research quality and influence, they constitute a pivotal
metric in making determinations concerning funding, advancement, and achieving tenure (Ceci et al., 2014; Mitchell
et al., 2013; Nettasinghe et al., 2021). For this reason, women's lower citations may also explain why they are less
likely to receive research funding, promotions, or tenure, all of which can have a long-term impact on their careers
(see also Chatterjee et al., 2021). Moreover, when women are less frequently cited, this may also limit the advance-
ment of their approaches and ideas (Ahmed, 2017). This means that some important research questions and perspec-
tives may be overlooked, which can lead to the reification of unethical hierarchies of knowledge production and limit
the potential for scientific innovation and progress (Ahmed, 2017; Mott & Cockayne, 2017). In sum, women's fewer
citations not only result in diminished acknowledgment and prominence for their contributions and therefore their
career progression, but it also perpetuates power imbalances within academia which can have adverse repercussions
on the advancement of knowledge and the field of science as a whole (Ahmed, 2017; Hemmings, 2011; Nash, 2020).
All these can, in turn, contribute to their lower research productivity and lower citation rates as well.
4.2 | The gender wage gap in science
Visibility in terms of citation counts has a direct, positive, and significant effect on salary (Diamond, 1986; Faria &
Mixon, 2021). Citations can lead to higher salaries because universities often evaluate merit in research productivity
and impact to determine salary increases (Sen et al., 2014; Wiedman, 2019). In science, there is a long-standing
WU 13 of 18
gender wage gap that women receive lower pay than men (Frederickson, 2018a, 2018b; Prokos & Padavic, 2005).
More recent research has connected women's lower citation rates to their lower earnings (Leahey, 2007). As an illus-
tration, utilizing a bibliometric profile encompassing data on gender, citation counts, annual salary, race, academic
rank, and field for nearly two thousand scholars from two prominent Canadian universities over a six-year period
(2014–2019), my analysis reveals a correlation between higher citation counts and increased annual salary. Specifi-
cally, each additional citation is associated with a $15 rise in annual salary. Moreover, the gender disparities in cita-
tion counts appear to elucidate a substantial portion of the gender wage gap, particularly at the full professor rank
(Wu, 2023). Hence, there is a critical need for more investigations into how the gender citation gap perpetuates the
gender wage gap in science.
5 | CONCLUSION
Scholars have taken different approaches to study how gender may shape citation patterns. Some studies focus on
comparing citations to articles, while others emphasize the gender distribution in references, and still, others examine the
citation rates of men and women as authors. Separating different levels of analysis has helped provide a more comprehen-
sive understanding of the gender citation gap. At the article level and the reference level, women's research is not cited
less. However, at the author level, women receive fewer citations. This means that the gender citation gap that women
receive fewer citations than men may not be due to their work is less cited. Instead, one major reason why women receive
fewer citations over time is because they tend to produce fewer publications. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on under-
standing why women publish less over the career course and take proactive steps to address this imbalance.
What are some immediate ways that can help women publish more? First, men and women scholars may consider
collaborating more with women scholars. Research suggest that most men collaborate solely with men, while most
women do not collaborate with women at all (Kwiek and Roszka, 2021). Research collaboration is a strong predictor
of publishing productivity in terms of total number of publications (Lee & Bozeman, 2005), which is key to total cita-
tion counts. Both men and especially women are encouraged to co-write more with women. Second, journal editors
can extend more invitations to women for article submissions. Research suggests that women are often held to
higher peer review standards and hence women-authored papers take half a year longer to publish (Hengel et. 2017),
and women are less likely to be invited to submit papers for journals (Conley & Stadmark, 2012). Editors reaching
out to invite more women for article submissions may help minimize the gender-related bias in the formal review
and editorial decisions (Seidel Malkinson et al., 2023). Third, academies can recognize women's work and select more
women into their membership and fellowship programs. Many academic associations (e.g., The US National Acad-
emy of Sciences, American Sociological Association, Canadian Sociological Association) publish journals and imple-
ment programs designed to mobilize their members' research and foster networking opportunities among peers.
Increasing the participation of women in the membership programs can be critical to elevating their publication rates.
Fourth, universities can allocate additional research time to women faculty members. It is well-documented that
women dedicate less of their time to research than teaching and other services (Misra et al., 2012). Granting women
additional dedicated research time is instrumental in boosting their overall research productivity. Finally, government
and funding organizations may consider funding more women's research. Research suggests that women often obtain
lower research funding amounts if not lower success rates (Schmaling & Gallo, 2023; Witteman et al., 2019). Promot-
ing gender equity in funding decisions serves as a potent strategy to bolster the research productivity of women.
Future research may explore the potential intersectional biases related to gender, race, and other social varia-
bles. Some studies have suggested the need to investigate how the interplay of race and gender may affect citation
patterns. For example, Smith and Garrett-Scott (2021) find that Black women anthropologists are not cited within the
discipline at a rate consistent with our scholarly production and visibility in the field. Ahmed (2017) also points out
that Black feminist scholars have historically been excluded from institutional recognition, both in terms of citation
practices and in terms of access to institutional resources and support. Gender may also intersect with other forms of
14 of 18 WU
bias. These include, for example, geographical citation biases, where research conducted in some regions is cited less,
and “political correctness” bias where research supporting or disapproving of some ideas at some time is cited more.
Addressing all forms of citation bias is necessary for true inclusivity in science (Pandey & Burch-Smith, 2023). Indeed,
referencing is not a neutral action. Therefore, scholars should exercise responsibility when citing both the works of
others and their own research (Penders, 2018).
CO N FLI CT OF I NTE RE ST STATE M E N T

I declare no conflict of interest.
O RC ID
Cary Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2652-5684
R EF ERE NCE S
Ahmed, A. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
Aiston, S. J., & Jung, J. (2016). Women academics and research productivity: An international comparison. In Globalised re/
gendering of the academy and leadership (pp. 17–32). Routledge.
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic
concepts and theories. Sage Open, 9(1), 2158244019829575. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
Andersen, J. P., Schneider, J. W., Jagsi, R., & Nielsen, M. W. (2019). Meta-Research: Gender variations in citation distribu-
tions in medicine are very small and due to self-citation and journal prestige. Elife, 8, e45374. https://doi.org/10.7554/
elife.45374
Atchison, A. L. (2017). Negating the gender citation advantage in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2),
448–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096517000014
Azoulay, P., & Lynn, F. B. (2020). Self-citation, cumulative advantage, and gender inequality in science. Sociological science, 7,
152–186. https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a7
Bendels, M. H., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by
Nature Index journals. PLoS One, 13(1), e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of
Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
Borrego, Á., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Ollé, C. (2010). Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender
perspective. Scientometrics, 83(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0025-y
Borsuk, R. M., Budden, A. E., Leimu, R., Aarssen, L. W., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). The influence of author gender, national
language and number of authors on citation rate in ecology. The Open Ecology Journal, 2(1), 25–28. https://doi.
org/10.2174/1874213000902010025
Campbell, L. G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M. E., & Rinehart, J. (2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher
quality science. PLoS One, 8(10), e79147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147
Caplar, N., Tacchella, S., & Birrer, S. (2017). Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation
counts. Nature Astronomy, 1(6), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0141
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R. M. (2021). Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Network Open, 4(7),
e2114509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509
Conley, D., & Stadmark, J. (2012). A call to commission more women writers. Nature, 488–590, 22932370. pmid.
Copenheaver, C. A., Goldbeck, K., & Cherubini, P. (2010). Lack of gender bias in citation rates of publications by dendrochro-
nologists: What is unique about this discipline? Tree-Ring Research, 66(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.3959/2009-10.1
Diamond, A. M., Jr. (1986). What is a citation worth? Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 200–215. https://doi.
org/10.2307/145797
Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science
methodology fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.12
Dougherty, M. R., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research
quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8), 220334. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.220334
Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T. K., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2012). The possible role
of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS
One, 7(12), e51332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
WU 15 of 18
Dworkin, J. D., Linn, K. A., Teich, E. G., Zurn, P., Shinohara, R. T., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbal-
ance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y
Eagly, A. H., & Miller, D. I. (2016). Scientific eminence: Where are the women? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6),
899–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616663918
Esarey, J., & Bryant, K. (2018). Are papers written by women authors cited less frequently? Political Analysis, 26(3), 331–334.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.24
Faria, J. R., & Mixon, F. G. (2021). The marginal impact of a publication on citations, and its effect on academic pay. Sciento-
metrics, 126(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04073-z
Ferber, M. A. (1986). Citations: Are they an objective measure of scholarly merit? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Soci-
ety, 11(2), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/494230
Ferber, M. A., & Brün, M. (2011). The gender gap in citations: Does it persist? Feminist Economics, 17(1), 151–158. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13545701.2010.541857
Fox, M. F., & Nikivincze, I. (2021). Being highly prolific in academic science: Characteristics of individuals and their depart-
ments. Higher Education, 81(6), 1237–1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00609-z
Frederickson, M. (2018a). Canadian professors still face a gender pay gap. University Affairs Canada webpage. (28March 2018.
Available at Retrieved from https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/canadian-professors-still-face-
gender-pay-gap/. accessed 9 March 2023.
Frederickson, M. (2018b). The gender citation gap: Why and how it matters. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/369333323_The_gender_citation_gap_Why_and_how_it_matters. accessed Jan 30 2024.
Fulvio, J. M., Akinnola, I., & Postle, B. R. (2021). Gender (im) balance in citation practices in cognitive neuroscience. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01643
Garfield, E. (1977). The 'obliteration phenomenon' in science -- and the advantage of being obliterated!" Current contents No.
51/52, December 22, 1975. Essays of an Information Scientist, 2, 396–398. reprinted in.
Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2023–2034.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1757-5
González-Álvarez, J., & Cervera-Crespo, T. (2017). Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neurosci-
ence: A gender analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007
Håkanson, M. (2005). The impact of gender on citations: An analysis of college & research libraries, journal of academic
librarianship, and library quarterly. College & Research Libraries, 66(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.4.312
Healy, K. (2015). Gender and citation in four general-interest philosophy journals, 1993–2013 [Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2015/02/25/gender-and-citation-in-fourgeneral-interest-philosophy-jour-
nals-1993-2013/
Hemmings, C. (2011). Why stories matter: The political grammar of feminist theory. Duke University Press.
Hengel, E. (2017). Publishing while female. Technical report. University of Liverpool.
Holman, L., & Morandin, C. (2019). Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across
the life sciences. PLoS One, 14(4), e0216128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216128
Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers
across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609–4616. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science,
40(3), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709358472
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and
self-citation across fields and over time. Socius, 3, 2378023117738903. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2021a). Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration.
Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101171
Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2021b). Gender disparities in international research collaboration: A study of 25,000 university
professors. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(5), 1344–1380. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12395
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature,
504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, produc-
tivity and impact: An analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-011-0369-y
Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6),
754–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293030
Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American
Sociological Review, 72(4), 533–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200403
Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scien-
tists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
16 of 18 WU
Leahey, E., Crockett, J. L., & Hunter, L. A. (2008). Gendered academic careers: Specializing for success? Social Forces, 86(3),
1273–1309. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0018
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5),
673–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
20(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010
Lerman, K., Yu, Y., Morstatter, F., & Pujara, J. (2022). Gendered citation patterns among the scientific elite. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 119(40), e2206070119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206070119
Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/
sf/71.1.159
Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women's writing in sociocultural anthropology. American Ethnologist, 17(4), 611–627. https://
doi.org/10.1525/ae.1990.17.4.02a00010
Lynn, F. B., Noonan, M. C., Sauder, M., & Andersson, M. A. (2019). A rare case of gender parity in academia. Social Forces,
98(2), 518–547. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy126
Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization,
67(4), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818313000209
Merton, R. K. (1977). The sociology of science an episodic memoir.
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property.
ISIS, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848
Mishra, S., Fegley, B. D., Diesner, J., & Torvik, V. I. (2018). Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender.
PLoS One, 13(9), e0195773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195773
Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., & Templer, A. (2012). Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty 1. In Sociological
forum (Vol. 27, pp. 300–323). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2
Mitchell, S. M., Lange, S., & Brus, H. (2013). Gendered citation patterns in international relations journals. International Studies
Perspectives, 14(4), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12026
Mohammad, S. M. (2020). Gender gap in natural language processing research: Disparities in authorship and citations. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2005.00962.
Mott, C., & Cockayne, D. (2017). Citation matters: Mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of conscientious
engagement. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(7), 954–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2017.1339022
Nash, J. C. (2020). Citational desires: On Black feminism's institutional longings. Diacritics, 48(3), 76–91. https://doi.
org/10.1353/dia.2020.0020
Nettasinghe, B., Alipourfard, N., Krishnamurthy, V., & Lerman, K. (2021). Emergence of structural inequalities in scientific
citation networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10944.
Nielsen, M. W. (2017). Gender and citation impact in management research. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1213–1228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.09.005
Odic, D., & Wojcik, E. H. (2020). The publication gender gap in psychology. American Psychologist, 75(1), 92–103. https://doi.
org/10.1037/amp0000480
Østby, G., Strand, H., Nordås, R., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2013). Gender gap or gender bias in peace research? Publication patterns
and citation rates for journal of peace research, 1983–2008. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 493–506. https://
doi.org/10.1111/insp.12025
Pandey, S., & Burch-Smith, T. (2023). Overcoming citation bias is necessary for true inclusivity in plant science. The Plant Cell.
koad248
Peñas, C. S., & Willett, P. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts
in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 32(5), 480–485.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506066058
Penders, B. (2018). Ten simple rules for responsible referencing. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(4), e1006036. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006036
Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2005). An examination of competing explanations for the pay gap among scientists and engineers.
Gender & Society, 19(4), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205274462
Rajkó, A., Herendy, C., Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2023). The Matilda effect in communication research: The effects of gender
and geography on usage and citations across 11 countries. Communication Research.00936502221124389
Rothstein, M. G., & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management
Review, 10(6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649429510095999
Rubin, H. (2022). Structural causes of citation gaps. Philosophical Studies, 179(7), 2323–2345. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11098-021-01765-3
Schmaling, K. B., & Gallo, S. A. (2023). Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: A system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 8(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3
WU 17 of 18
Sebo, P., & Clair, C. (2023). Gender inequalities in citations of articles published in high-impact general medical jour-
nals: A cross-sectional study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(3), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11606-022-07717-9
Seidel Malkinson, T., Terhune, D. B., Kollamkulam, M., Guerreiro, M. J., Bassett, D. S., & Makin, T. R. (2023). Gender imbal-
ances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors. PLoS One, 18(12), e0294805. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294805
Sen, A., Ariizumi, H., & DeSousa, N. (2014). Evaluating the relationship between pay and research productivity: Panel data
evidence from Ontario universities. Canadian Public Policy, 40(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2012-065
Smith, C. A., & Garrett-Scott, D. (2021). “We are not named”: Black women and the politics of citation in anthropology. Femi-
nist Anthropology, 2(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/fea2.12038
Symonds, M. R., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication
output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One, 1(1), e127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0000127
Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the
literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
Teich, E. G., Kim, J. Z., Lynn, C. W., Simon, S. C., Klishin, A. A., Szymula, K. P., Srivastava, P., Bassett, L. C., Zurn, P., Dworkin, J.
D., & Bassett, D. S. (2022). Citation inequity and gendered citation practices in contemporary physics. Nature Physics,
18(10), 1161–1170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01770-1
Thelwall, M. (2018). Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and mendeley readers for articles from five
countries. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1031–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.005
Thelwall, M. (2020). Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six English-speaking countries 1996–2014. Quan-
titative Science Studies, 1(2), 599–617.
Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Abdoli, M., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. (2022). In which fields are citations indicators
of research quality? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05416.
Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2019). No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochem-
istry, genetics and molecular biology research. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1793–1801. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-019-03271-0
Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2020). Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing
gender disparities in academia. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1283–1297. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00069
Van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2017). Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance:
Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS One, 12(8), e0183301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0183301
Wang, X., Dworkin, J. D., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E. B., Bassett, D. S., Zurn, P., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2021). Gendered citation
practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180
Ward, K. B., Gast, J., & Grant, L. (1992). Visibility and dissemination of women's and men's sociological scholarship. Social
Problems, 39(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096963
Wiedman, C. (2019). Rewarding collaborative research: Role congruity bias and the gender pay gap in academe. Journal of
Business Ethics, 1–15.
Wijesingha, R., & Ramos, H. (2017). Human capital or cultural taxation: What accounts for differences in tenure and promo-
tion of racialized and female faculty? Canadian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur,
47(3), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v47i3.187902
Wijesingha, R., & Robson, K. (2021). Glass ceiling or murky waters: The gendered and racialized pathway to full professorship in
Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 59(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12365
Witteman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., & Tannenbaum, C. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the appli-
cant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393(10171), 531–540. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32611-4
Wu, C. (2023). The gender citation gap: Why and how it matters. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie,
60(2), 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12428
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Soci-
ological Review, 63(6), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657505
AUT HOR BI OGRAPHY
Cary Wu (carywu@yorku.ca) is York Research Chair and Associate Professor of Sociology at York University,
Canada.
WU
How to cite this article: Wu, C. (2024). The gender citation gap: Approaches, explanations, and implications.
Sociology Compass, e13189. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13189
18 of 18

Sociology Compass - 2024 - Wu - The Gender Citation Gap Approaches Explanations and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sociology Compass - 2024 - Wu - The Gender Citation Gap Approaches Explanations and Implications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology Compass - 2024 - Wu - The Gender Citation Gap Approaches Explanations and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 19 April 2023 Revised: 10 January 2024 Accepted: 23 January 2024

The gender citation gap: Approaches,

Department of Sociology, York University,

Sociology Compass. 2024;e13189. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 1 of 18

2 | GENDER AND CITATIONS: THREE APPROACHES

2.1 | Per-article approach

2.2 | Per-author approach

2.3 | Reference-ratio approach

TA B L E 1 An overview of gender and citations research.

Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Nielsen 2017 Management Per article/ Negligible/ 1. W omen management scholars

Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Authors Year Field Approach Gender gap Key findings

Huang et al. 2020 General Per author Significant 1. T he increase of participation of

3 | EXPLAINING THE GENDER CITATION GAP

3.1 | Article-level explanations

3.2 | Author-level explanations

4 | THE GENDER CITATION GAP MATTERS

4.1 | Women's visibility in science

4.2 | The gender wage gap in science

CO N FLI CT OF I NTE RE ST STATE M E N T

AUT HOR BI OGRAPHY

You might also like

Nielsen 2017 Management Per article/ Negligible/ 1. W omen management scholars

Huang et al. 2020 General Per author Significant 1. T he increase of participation of