Female Scientists Less Likely To Be Given Authorship Credits, Analysis Finds - S...
source link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/22/06/24/2018249/female-scientists-less-likely-to-be-given-authorship-credits-analysis-finds
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Female Scientists Less Likely To Be Given Authorship Credits, Analysis Finds
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
"We have known for a long time that women publish and patent at a lower rate than men. But, because previous data never showed who participated in research, no one knew why," said Prof Julia Lane at New York University in the US, who led the new research. Lane and her colleagues analysed administrative data on research projects conducted at 52 US colleges and universities between 2013 and 2016. They matched information about 128,859 scientists to 39,426 journal articles and 7,675 patents, looking at which people who worked on individual projects received credit and which did not.
-
-
*Citation needed.
-
I'll counter with, "Men are less likely to want to do certain kinds of work."/another-meaningless-generic-statement
-
One type of work men are less likely to want to do is work they won't get recognition for. So both your and the GP's statements appear correct, and both have implications which can lead to women not getting as much credit on research projects they are involved in. Men are simply more likely to say NO to tasks which wouldn't be important enough to get recognition for, while women tend to be more team players who take on thankless tasks. It doesn't take something nefarious for there to be discriminatory outco
-
Of course, *my* point is that the original statement is a meaningless generalization. There will always be "certain kinds of work" any group, including everyone, won't want to do.
-
That's silly. The vast majority of all jobs in the world are thankless jobs that get you no recognition. Go ask the person who picks up your garbage how much recognition he or she has gotten from the bosses.
-
-
I'm a man and I don't want to do any kind of work, and I don't think I'm alone on this here. I'm not sure your statement is as meaningless as you intended.
-
There will always be "certain kinds of work" that any one/group won't want to do. My statement is just as meaning-less/full as the OP. For OP to single out women is ridiculous -- which is *my* point.
-
-
-
Wow! Congratulations, you sir have won the Slashdot Ignoramus award!
Not only did you instill casual sexism by claiming a completely unsupported bigoted opinion as a "damn fact", but you did so why clearly not reading the article, which states that the study (published in Nature no less) analyzed administrative data about who worked on projects related to publications and then compared who the co-authors were, and found women who worked on projects were twice as likely to not be named a co-author while working on a project as men.
So prove women have actually been discriminated against: i.e. that despite putting as much work into a paper a woman is less likely to be given credit.
That is exactly what they did, with damn facts no less!
-
The question remains whether the contributions of the men and women were comparable; this paper does not answer that. FTFA:
The vast majority of these postgraduates were not named as authors on these publications, and it isn't remotely clear why. A disparity does not prove discrimination [amazon.com].
-
Zoom. You completely missed my point with your emotional rant.
https://psychology.stackexchan... [stackexchange.com]
These gender differences, although small, may explain one factor why less women appear on papers/patents. Men being assholes may also be another cause. Y can be A + B + C
-
-
-
›
>because previous data never showed who participated in research, no one knew why,
This data doesn't show why either. It shows one possible reason why. You can't skip from "women are less likely to be given credit" for a given paper to "despite doing the same amount of work, women are less likely to be given credit" for a given paper.-
Not less work, equivalent work. If men regularly get listed as contributors for performing a particular task, but women don't, that's not fair.
If you check TFA they did just that.
-
-
Scientists stunned: 4 out of 5 women less assertive than men!
Its like they were biologically made to nurture rather than hunt and kill.
Science community now debating how they can turn women into men to stop this travesty.-
Yeah you must wonder why women don’t talk to you.
-
> Yeah you must wonder why women don’t talk to you.
That is because women can't handle the truth.
"Do I look fat in this dress?"
-
-
-
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but under U.S. patent law, *all* of the inventors must be listed on the patent application for it to be valid.
If a company or university deliberately leaves a female inventor off of the patent application, and she qualifies as an inventor under USPTO definitions, then the patent can be invalidated for that reason. Leaving any actual inventor off of a patent would be a foolish thing to do.
-
-
"Inventors" named on a patent must be either the "original inventor" or a "original joint inventor". If they are not, they can be fined or imprisoned for fraud.
-
-
In practice, often only the primary researcher is listed. And many researchers take credit for their students' work. I'm afraid female students may be less likely to insist on credit.
-
There's a difference between something being illegal and actually enforcing it.
We've run across that, where a colleague of mine was able to prove via his lab notebooks that he was an inventor on a patent but was left off. The patent was licensed out with royalties to inventors almost immediately after being filed no less, and he became aware that the inventors were receiving royalties, so he raised a stink. Was the patent withdrawn? Nope, he was added to the patent and paid by the others his fair share of the royalties, because no one wanted to invalidate the patent; they'd rather hand over some royalties than return all of it.
So just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and just because it happens doesn't mean something is done about it. I'm sure there are plenty of patents that are just sitting around doing nothing that haven't been fixed. And even if they are earning royalties, my friend had to fight for his rights; many women don't really know how to do that and find it difficult to assert themselves for what they're owed.
-
If you read the article, you would see only 21% of the men on the research teams were named on publications, as opposed to 15% of women. It is therefore quite common for the vast majority of those involved with the research to not get that level of recognition.
This probably has more to do with the same factors which contribute to pay gaps in the corporate world. Things like women not being as assertive as men naturally, but being considered bossy or bitchy if they are assertive. Nothing nefarious per say, b
-
-
Is not the same thing as being a "co-inventor". Only co-inventors can be listed on a patent. Oh well.
-
to a calm, reasonable discussion on this topic. Just ignore the popcorn on my lap.
-
Clearly, the only reason your posts ever get up-voted is due to systemic patriarchy on/.
-
-
"Of women, 43% reported having been excluded from a publication, compared with 38% of men. The most common explanation was that others had underestimated their contribution, however, women were twice as likely to cite discrimination or bias as an explanation, while men were more likely to say their contributions did not warrant authorship."
So the other explanation is that women are twice as likely to blame external factors for their lack of performance while men are more honest when assessing their shortcomings.
-
Regardless of what people think was the reason, those are both disgustingly high numbers. Unfortunately many people are far more influenced by schmoozing than by having to deal with details of who knows what technical information. Management by popularity contest results in any context is a bad thing.
And, things will not be right in the world until Crick and Watson are stripped of their credit for stealing the discovery of DNA. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about needs to do some reading.
-
Another way of interpreting it is the men are more likely to rationalize not being included, to hold on to their belief that the world is a meritocracy. Women are more rational.
-
-
What is the big deal with this, gender is a social construct. Just identify as a man. All you have to do is update your pronouns to he/him.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK