“A first step in establishing your research agenda is to explicitly search for collaborators.”
(McCormick and Barnes 2007, p. 10).
Abstract
In modern knowledge societies, scientific research is crucial, but expensive and often publicly financed. However, with regard to scientific research success, some studies have found gender differences in favor of men. To explain this, it has been argued that female researchers collaborate less than male researchers, and the current study examines this argument scientometrically. A secondary data analysis was applied to the sample of a recent scientometric publication (König et al. in Scientometrics 105:1931–1952, 2015. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1646-y). The sample comprised 4234 (45 % female) industrial–organizational psychologists with their 46,656 publications (published from 1948 to 2013) and all of their approx. 100,000 algorithmically genderized collaborators (i.e., co-authors). Findings confirmed that (a) the majority of researchers’ publications resulted from collaborations, and (b) their engagement in collaborations was related to their scientific success, although not as clearly as expected (and partly even negatively). However, there was no evidence that a lack of female collaboration causes females’ lower scientific success. In fact, female researchers engage in more scientific collaborations. Our findings have important implications for science and society because they make gender differences in scientific success much harder to rationalize.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As we explain later, our sample of researchers is approximately gender-balanced.
A mediator is a variable through which one variable influences another (Hayes 2013).
A moderator is a variable that influences the association between two other variables (Hayes 2013).
The following packages were used: car (Fox and Weisberg 2011), coin (Hothorn et al. 2008; see also Yatani 2014), compute.es (del Re 2013), descr (Aquino 2014, 2015), genderizeR (Wais 2015a, b), gsl (Hankin 2006), lattice (Sarkar 2008), lsr (Navarro 2015), pbabpply (Solymos 2014), plyr (Wickham 2011), psych (Revelle 2015), RCurl (Temple Lang 2015), robustbase (Rousseeuw et al. 2015), rockchalk (Johnson 2015), stargazer (Hlavac 2015), stringr (Wickham 2012), and XML (Temple Lang 2013).
In PsycINFO, information on citations in the database itself is still only available for relatively few publications.
References
Abbar, S., Mejova, Y., & Weber, I. (2015). You tweet what you eat: Studying food consumption through Twitter. In B. Begole, J. Kim, K. Inkpen, & W. Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI) (pp. 3197–3206). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702153.
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 403–412. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79, 517–539. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 811–822. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002.
Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 957–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x.
Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 284–303. doi:10.1111/iops.12151.
Aho, K. A. (2014). Foundational and applied statistics for biologists using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2011). Practice guidelines for LGB clients: Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Demographic characteristics of APA members by membership status. http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/13-member/table-1.pdf.
American Psychological Association. (2015). PsycINFO(R): A world-class resource for behavioral and social science research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/psycinfo-printable-fact-sheet.pdf.
Aquino, J. (2014). descr: Descriptive statistics (Version 1.0.4). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=descr.
Aquino, J. (2015). descr: Descriptive statistics (Version 1.1.1). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=descr.
Bagilhole, B. (1993). How to keep a good woman down: An investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14, 261–274. doi:10.1080/0142569930140303.
Barnard-Brak, L., Saxon, T. F., & Johnson, H. (2011). Publication productivity among doctoral graduates of educational psychology programs at research universities before and after the year 2000. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 65–73. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9146-3.
Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781.
Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics, 95, 15–23. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0816-4.
Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., & Wrangham, R. (2014). Rank influences human sex differences in dyadic cooperation. Current Biology, 24, R190–R191. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.047.
Bevelander, D., & Page, M. J. (2011). Ms. Trust: Gender, networks and trust—implications for management and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 623–642. doi:10.5465/amle.2009.0138.
Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53, 195–206. doi:10.1023/A:1014800407876.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.
Boscardin, W. J. (2013, October 25). Approaches to handling missing data. Presented at the K-Scholars Seminar, San Francisco, CA. http://www.epibiostat.ucsf.edu/courses/RoadmapK12/11AM_seminars/boscardin102513.pdf.
Boschini, A., & Sjögren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 325–365. doi:10.1086/510764.
Bowden, R. (2011, January 31). How to be a successful scientist. Naturejobs. Blog. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/01/31/how-to-be-a-successful-scientist.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40, 1393–1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002.
Brown, A. (2014). Double-blind under review. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 871–872. doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.265.
Capéraà, P., & Genest, C. (1993). Spearman’s ρ is larger than Kendall’s τ for positively dependent random variables. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, 2, 183–194. doi:10.1080/10485259308832551.
Castelvecchi, D. (2015, May 15). Physics paper sets record with more than 5000 authors. Nature News & Comment. http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153/facilitating-interdisciplinary-research.
Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. (N. J. Cooke & M. L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science.
Costa, P. J., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 110–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322.
Costanza, D. P., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). The fifth scenario: Identity expansion in organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 281–285. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01240.x.
de Beaver, D. B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I—professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65–84. doi:10.1007/BF02016840.
De Meuse, K. P., Yang, K. Y., & Feil, J. (2014). A critical analysis of topical content and authorship trends in applied psychology. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51, 20–35. http://www.siop.org/tip/april14/demeuse.pdf.
de Solla Price, D. J., & de Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018. doi:10.1037/h0024051.
De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35, 370–381. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.004.
del Re, A. C. (2013). compute.es: Compute effect sizes. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es.
Demarest, B., Freeman, G., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). The reviewer in the mirror: Examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review. Scientometrics, 101, 717–735. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1354-z.
Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77, 385–407. doi:10.1111/obes.12070.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 473–502. doi:10.1023/A:1023400201387.
Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Ven, T. M. V., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 847–856. doi:10.2307/420730.
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/.
Fu, F., Nowak, M. A., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). The evolution of homophily. Scientific Reports, 2(845), 1–6. doi:10.1038/srep00845.
Garg, K. C., & Kumar, S. (2013). Scientometric profile of Indian scientific output in life sciences with a focus on the contributions of women scientists. Scientometrics, 98, 1771–1783. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1107-4.
Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: A case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87, 251–265. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0343-8.
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 323–335. doi:10.1002/asi.21688.
Genderize.io. (2015, June). Genderize.io | Determine the gender of a first name. https://genderize.io/#overview.
Gentile, B., Grabe, S., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Twenge, J. M., Wells, B. E., & Maitino, A. (2009). Gender differences in domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 13, 34–45. doi:10.1037/a0013689.
Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50, 461.
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics… and beyond? Scientometrics, 30, 375–384. doi:10.1007/BF02018107.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9.
Hankin, R. K. S. (2006). Special functions in R: Introducing the gsl package. R News, 6(4), 24–26. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gsl/vignettes/gslpaper.pdf.015.
Harzing, A.-W. (2012). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057–1075. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hekelman, D. F. P., Zyzanski, S. J., & Flocke, S. A. (1995). Successful and less-successful research performance of junior faculty. Research in Higher Education, 36, 235–255. doi:10.1007/BF02207790.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Hlavac, M. (2015). stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer.
Holgate, S. A. (2012). How to collaborate. Science Career Magazine,. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1200082.
Holliday, C. O. (2012). Universities, key to prosperity. Science, 336, 1482. doi:10.1126/science.1225457.
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M. A., & Zeileis, A. (2008). Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. Journal of Statistical Software,. doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i08.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Ingraham, C. (2014, May 31). There are 39 major studio releases coming this summer: Only one is directed by a woman. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/31/there-are-39-major-studio-releases-coming-this-summer-only-one-is-directed-by-a-woman/.
Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2013). Childbearing and (female) research productivity: A personnel economics perspective on the leaky pipeline. Journal of Business Economics, 84, 517–530. doi:10.1007/s11573-013-0676-2.
Johnson, P. E. (2015). rockchalk: Regression estimation and presentation. Lawrence, KS: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences - Political Science, Center for Research Methods & Data Analysis. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rockchalk/index.html.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286.
Jyrkinen, M., & McKie, L. (2012). Gender, age and ageism: Experiences of women managers in Finland and Scotland. Work, Employment & Society, 26, 61–77. doi:10.1177/0950017011426313.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603–625. doi:10.1177/1075547012472684.
Koller, M., & Stahel, W. A. (2011). Sharpening Wald-type inference in robust regression for small samples. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 2504–2515. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2011.02.014.
König, C. J., Fell, C. B., Kellnhofer, L., & Schui, G. (2015). Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Scientometrics, 105, 1931–1952. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1646-y.
Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists’ research activities and professional information-seeking behaviour: Empirical analyses with reference to the theory of the intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Journal of Information Science, 37, 439–450. doi:10.1177/0165551511412148.
Kretschmer, H., Kundra, R., de Beaver, D. B., & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics, 93, 135–150. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0661-5.
Kruskal, W. H. (1958). Ordinal measures of association. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 814–861. doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501481.
Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 54–71. doi:10.1177/016224399602100103.
Lander, E. S., Linton, L. M., Birren, B., Nusbaum, C., Zody, M. C., Baldwin, J., et al. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860–921. doi:10.1038/35057062.
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702. doi:10.1177/0306312705052359.
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
Lips, H. M. (2013). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations: Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68, 169–185. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
Malakoff, D. (2000). Does science drive the productivity train? Science, 289, 1274–1276. doi:10.1126/science.289.5483.1274.
Malouff, J., Schutte, N., & Priest, J. (2010). Publication rates of Australian academic psychologists. Australian Psychologist, 45, 78–83. doi:10.1080/00050060903078536.
Mayrath, M. C. (2007). Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 41–56. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9059-y.
McCormick, C. B., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Getting started in academia: A guide for educational psychologists. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 5–18. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9058-z.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586.
McDonald, P., Guthrie, D., Bradley, L., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2005). Investigating work-family policy aims and employee experiences. Employee Relations, 27, 478–494. doi:10.1108/01425450510612013.
McDowell, J. M., Singell, J., Larry, D., & Stater, M. (2006). Two to tango? Gender differences in the decisions to publish and coauthor. Economic Inquiry, 44, 153–168. doi:10.1093/ei/cbi065.
McGovern, V. (2009). Perspective: How to succeed in big science and still get tenure. Science Career Magazine,. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a0900092.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1.
Menking, A. (2015, March 9). Gender as a text field: What Wikipedia can learn from Facebook. Wikimedia blog. Blog. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/09/gender-as-a-text-field/.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238. doi:10.1177/000312240406900204.
Moore, A., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 296–302. doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.623197.
Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A., & Parenti, I. V. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2755-9.
National Science Board. (2014). Science & engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/etc/nsb1401.pdf.
Nature Editorial. (2013). Science for all. Nature, 495, 5. doi:10.1038/495005a.
Navarro, D. (2015). Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.5). Adelaide: University of Adelaide. http://ua.edu.au/ccs/teaching/lsr.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 404–409. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404.
Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100.
O*NET. (2014). Details report for: 19-3032.00—Industrial-organizational psychologists. http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/19-3032.00.
O*NET. (2015, July 23). Work activities: Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. O*NET OnLine. http://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.A.4.a.4?a=1.
Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics, 98, 703–723. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y.
Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Interface, 11, 20140378. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.
Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421–432. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d.
Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27–58. doi:10.1023/A:1016046819457.
Raan, A. F. J. V. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42, 423–428. doi:10.1007/BF02458380.
R Core Team. (2015a). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version x64 3.2.1). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
R Core Team. (2015b). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version x64 3.1.3). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
Rhoads, S. E., & Rhoads, C. H. (2012). Gender roles and infant/toddler care: Male and female professors on the tenure track. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6, 13–31. doi:10.1037/h0099227.
Rosenthal, P., Guest, D., & Peccei, R. (1996). Gender difference in managers’ causal explanations for their work performance: A study in two organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 145–151. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00606.x.
Rousseeuw, P., Croux, C., Todorov, V., Ruckstuhl, A., Salibian-Barrera, M., Verbeke, T., et al. (2015). robustbase: Basic robust statistics. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robustbase.
Rupert, P. A., & Kent, J. S. (2007). Gender and work setting differences in career-sustaining behaviors and burnout among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 88–96. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.1.88.
Sarkar, D. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York, NY: Springer. http://lmdvr.r-forge.r-project.org.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299.
Schui, G., & Krampen, G. (2015). ZPID-Monitor 2012 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der Kurzbericht [2012 ZPID Monitor on the internationality of psychology in the German-speaking countries: Brief report]. Psychologische Rundschau, 66, 124–127. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000234.
Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39, 319–335. doi:10.1023/A:1018781118312.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497.
Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10107–10112. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403334111.
Smith, M. J., Weinberger, C., Bruna, E. M., & Allesina, S. (2014). The scientific impact of nations: Journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE, 9, e109195. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109195.
Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues. (2014, August 7). Div. 44 Bylaws. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/about/index.aspx. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/about/bylaws.aspx.
Solymos, P. (2014). pbapply: Adding progress bar to “*apply” functions. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pbapply.
Spurk, D., Meinecke, A. L., Kauffeld, S., & Volmer, J. (2015). Gender, professional networks, and subjective career success within early academic science careers: The role of gender composition in inside and outside departmental support networks. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 121–130. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000131.
Tate, C. C., Ledbetter, J. N., & Youssef, C. P. (2013). A two-question method for assessing gender categories in the social and medical sciences. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 767–776. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.690110.
Temple Lang, D. (2013). XML: Tools for parsing and generating XML within R and S-Plus. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=XML.
Temple Lang, D. (2015). RCurl: General network (HTTP/FTP/…) client interface for R. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RCurl.
Thomson Reuters. (2013a). Journal Citation Reports(R) Science Edition 2012. JCR-Web 4.5 Welcome. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
Thomson Reuters. (2013b). Journal Citation Reports(R) Social Science Edition 2012. JCR-Web 4.5 Welcome. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon, F. G. (2015). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management, Advance online publication,. doi:10.1177/0149206315599216.
Üsdiken, B. (1996). Importing theories of management and organization: The case of Turkish academia. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 33–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40397344.
van Emmerik, I. H. (2006). Gender differences in the creation of different types of social capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28, 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.002.
Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291, 1304–1351. doi:10.1126/science.1058040.
Wais, K. (2015a). genderizeR: Gender prediction based on first names (Version 1.2.0). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=genderizeR.
Wais, K. (2015b). genderizeR: Gender prediction based on first names (Version 1.1.0). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=genderizeR.
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.491.
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8, e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.
Wickham, H. (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i01/paper.
Wickham, H. (2012). stringr: Make it easier to work with strings. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr.
Wolff, H.-G., & Muck, P. M. (2009). Persönlichkeit und Networking: Eine Analyse mittels interpersonalem Circumplex [Personality and networking: An analysis based on the interpersonal circumplex]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 8, 106–116. doi:10.1026/1617-6391.8.3.106.
Yatani, K. (2014). Wilcoxon Signed-rank test. http://yatani.jp/teaching/doku.php?id=hcistats:wilcoxonsigned.
Yohai, V. J. (1987). High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. The Annals of Statistics, 15, 642–656. doi:10.1214/aos/1176350366.
Young, L. (2014, September 9). Women make up more than half the U.S. population, less than one fourth of U.S. House witnesses. Sunlight Foundation. Blog. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/09/women-make-up-half-the-u-s-population-one-fourth-of-u-s-house-witnesses/.
Yuret, T. (2014). Why do economists publish less? Applied Economics Letters, 21, 760–762. doi:10.1080/13504851.2014.889792.
Zawacki-Richter, O., & von Prummer, C. (2010). Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25, 95–114. doi:10.1080/02680511003787297.
Acknowledgments
We thank the supportive R community, Kamil Wais for helping us to use genderizeR, and Casper Strømgren for a sufficiently powerful genderize.io subscription.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fell, C.B., König, C.J. Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics 108, 113–141 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5