Who Gets Credit? Gender and Authorship in Canadian Science

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new analysis reveals persistent gender disparities in authorship of Canadian science publications, but suggests the issue stems from broader representation in STEM, not necessarily bias in the publishing process.

A bibliometric study of Canadian Science Publishing journals from 2011-2021 demonstrates underrepresentation of women authors, particularly in first and last author positions.

Despite Canada’s international reputation for scientific leadership and commitment to equity, demonstrable gender disparities persist within its research landscape. This study, ‘Balancing the Byline: Exploring Gender and Authorship Patterns in Canadian Science Publishing Journals’, analyzes over 67,000 articles from 2010-2021 to reveal that women comprise less than one-third of published authors across Canadian Science Publishing journals, and are underrepresented in prominent authorship positions. These findings suggest broader systemic challenges within STEM fields may contribute to this imbalance more than publication bias alone. What interventions can effectively address these enduring inequalities and foster truly inclusive scientific publishing practices?

The Persistent Imbalance in Scientific Recognition

Despite decades of focused effort to promote inclusivity, a notable imbalance continues to characterize scientific authorship. Analyses consistently demonstrate that women remain underrepresented in published research, a disparity most pronounced in first and last authorship positions – roles typically associated with greater contributions and career advancement. This isn’t simply a question of equal numbers; the consistent gap suggests systemic factors hinder women’s full participation and recognition within the scientific community. While the reasons are complex, encompassing potential biases in peer review, mentorship opportunities, and career trajectories, the persistent underrepresentation signals a need for continued scrutiny and targeted interventions to ensure equitable access and acknowledgment for all researchers.

The underrepresentation of women in scientific authorship extends beyond simple demographic imbalances, potentially indicating deeply embedded systemic obstacles that hinder career advancement and professional acknowledgment. Research suggests these barriers aren’t isolated incidents of bias, but rather reflect patterns in mentorship opportunities, access to funding, and the evaluation of scholarly contributions. Consequently, women may face disproportionate challenges in securing leadership roles within research teams, which often translate directly into first- or last-authorship positions – critical for building a strong academic profile. This disparity doesn’t simply affect individual careers; it limits the diversity of perspectives driving scientific innovation and perpetuates a cycle where contributions from women are systematically undervalued or overlooked within the broader scientific community.

A comprehensive analysis of scientific publications originating from Canada between 2011 and 2021 reveals a persistent underrepresentation of women in authorship roles. The study demonstrates that women constituted only 33% of all authors during this decade, a figure that underscores the significant gap in scholarly contributions. This proportion, while reflecting some progress, indicates a continuing imbalance that extends beyond simple numerical representation. The data suggests systemic challenges may be limiting women’s full participation and recognition within the scientific community, impacting both career advancement and the diversity of perspectives driving research forward. The findings emphasize the need for continued scrutiny and targeted interventions to foster a more equitable and inclusive landscape for scientific authorship.

Mapping Gender Representation: A Bibliometric Approach

This study utilized bibliometric analysis of publications sourced from Canadian Science Publishing to quantitatively assess gender representation within scientific literature. The methodology involved the systematic collection and statistical analysis of publication data, including author names, author order, and publication dates. This approach allows for a broad, data-driven examination of gender distribution across various scientific disciplines published by this Canadian publisher. The scope of the analysis encompassed a significant corpus of research articles, enabling the identification of patterns and trends in author gender representation that would be difficult to ascertain through qualitative methods. Data was extracted and processed to determine the proportion of female and male authors contributing to the published body of work.

Automated gender classification was performed on author names using NamSor software to facilitate analysis of a large dataset of publications from Canadian Science Publishing. This approach allowed for the processing of thousands of author records that would be impractical through manual coding. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that NamSor, like all automated gender prediction tools, is not perfect. The software relies on probabilistic algorithms based on name and geographical origin, resulting in an estimated accuracy rate, and inevitably misclassifies some individuals. While these errors are assumed to be randomly distributed across genders, they represent a limitation of the methodology and should be considered when interpreting the results.

Analysis of authorship positions revealed a notable gender disparity: 36% of first authors were women, compared to only 27% of last authors. This difference suggests an underrepresentation of women in leadership roles within research projects, as the last author position typically signifies principal investigators or senior researchers responsible for overall project direction and manuscript finalization. The 9 percentage point gap highlights a potential barrier for women in attaining these senior positions, despite comparable representation among those initiating research as first authors. This finding indicates that while women participate actively in the early stages of research, they are less frequently recognized as leaders responsible for the completed work.

Analysis of authorship data reveals a significant disparity in solo-authored publications, with women representing only 2% of all first authors in this category. This contrasts sharply with their representation in co-authored works, where their participation is considerably higher. This finding suggests that systemic barriers may impede women’s ability to independently conduct and publish research, potentially impacting career advancement and recognition within the scientific community. The low representation in solo-authored publications is not attributable to submission rates, as the proportion of women submitting manuscripts is comparable to the proportion of women being published overall.

Analysis of manuscript submission and publication rates reveals a close correspondence between the proportion of articles submitted by women (34%) and those ultimately published (33%). This parity in submission and acceptance rates suggests that observed gender disparities in scientific publishing are likely not attributable to bias during the peer review process. Instead, the data points towards systemic factors within the research ecosystem-such as differing access to resources, mentorship opportunities, or career progression-as primary drivers of the underrepresentation of women in published scientific literature. Further investigation is required to identify and address these specific systemic barriers.

Dissecting the Drivers of Disparity: A Systemic View

Analysis of authorship data suggests that observed gender disparities in scientific publications are likely influenced by a combination of systemic barriers and potential publication biases. Systemic barriers may include unequal access to resources, mentorship opportunities, or career advancement, which can disproportionately affect women’s ability to participate in and lead research projects. Simultaneously, publication bias – the tendency for studies with positive or statistically significant results to be more readily published – could exacerbate these disparities if research led by women is subject to different evaluation criteria or is less likely to be submitted or accepted for publication. These factors combined contribute to a demonstrable underrepresentation of women across the scientific literature, impacting both the volume and visibility of their contributions.

Analysis of authorship order demonstrates a significant disparity in representation of women in positions indicative of scientific leadership and senior responsibility. Specifically, women constitute only 27% of last authors across the examined datasets. Last authorship is generally associated with principal investigators or those who have made substantial contributions to the conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation of research. This underrepresentation suggests a potential systemic bias where women are less likely to be recognized for, or attain, positions of leadership within scientific projects, despite comparable levels of participation in research activities as indicated by their representation as first and middle authors.

Analysis reveals that gender disparities in scientific publishing extend beyond the total number of publications to encompass the attribution of influence and leadership roles. While publication counts may appear relatively balanced in some fields, a closer examination of authorship positioning demonstrates unequal recognition; specifically, women are less frequently represented in positions indicative of greater contribution, such as last authorship. This suggests that even when women do publish, their work may not receive the same level of visibility or be perceived as having the same impact as that of their male counterparts, impacting career advancement and access to resources within the scientific community. This disparity in recognition signifies a systemic issue concerning the valuation of contributions, not simply access to publication opportunities.

Analysis of authorship data reveals substantial field-specific disparities in representation. Specifically, women constitute 48% of first authors in biomedical sciences publications, indicating relatively balanced early-career recognition in this domain. However, representation drops significantly in engineering, where women account for only 22% of first authors. This 26 percentage point difference suggests systemic factors within engineering may disproportionately limit women’s opportunities to lead research projects and secure primary authorship positions compared to the biomedical sciences.

Toward Equitable Scientific Practices: A Necessary Evolution

The pursuit of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is increasingly recognized as fundamental to the integrity and advancement of science itself. Historically, systemic barriers have marginalized certain groups – based on gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, ability, and other factors – limiting their access to opportunities and hindering their full participation in the scientific enterprise. Dismantling these barriers isn’t merely a matter of social justice; it’s essential for maximizing innovation and ensuring that scientific inquiry benefits from the widest possible range of perspectives and talents. A truly inclusive scientific landscape fosters creativity, enhances the quality of research, and increases the relevance of scientific solutions to a diverse global community. Prioritizing EDI therefore requires proactive strategies that address both individual biases and the structural inequalities embedded within scientific institutions, funding mechanisms, and publishing practices.

Programs designed to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion within scientific communities, such as Canada’s Research Chairs Program and the Dimensions Charter, represent significant institutional commitments, yet their effectiveness hinges on continuous assessment and iterative improvement. While these initiatives aim to address historical underrepresentation and systemic biases, simply establishing a framework is insufficient; regular evaluations are crucial to identify unintended consequences, measure tangible progress, and adapt strategies based on empirical evidence. These evaluations must extend beyond simple metrics of participation to examine the quality of experiences, the impact on career trajectories, and the extent to which these programs genuinely foster a more inclusive and equitable scientific culture. Refinement isn’t merely about fixing flaws, but about proactively ensuring these programs remain responsive to evolving needs and contribute meaningfully to lasting change within the scientific landscape.

A deeper understanding of how gender disparity manifests within scientific fields is crucial for developing effective strategies to promote equity. Research reveals that imbalances aren’t uniform; they often appear in specific disciplines, career stages, and publication venues, indicating that a one-size-fits-all approach to intervention will likely be ineffective. By analyzing these nuanced patterns – such as differences in citation rates, grant funding success, and representation in leadership positions – targeted interventions can be designed to address the root causes of inequality. These might include mentorship programs specifically for women in underrepresented fields, bias training for grant review committees, or policies promoting inclusive authorship practices. Ultimately, recognizing the complexity of gender disparity allows for the creation of a more equitable scientific environment where all researchers have the opportunity to thrive and contribute to innovation.

A persistent imbalance in scientific publishing necessitates sustained investigation and the implementation of forward-thinking strategies to promote gender equality. Recent analyses reveal that while progress has been made, women remain underrepresented as both first and senior authors in numerous fields, suggesting systemic biases continue to influence visibility and recognition. Further research is crucial to pinpoint the specific mechanisms driving these disparities – encompassing peer review processes, editorial decision-making, and self-promotion patterns – and to assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate them. Proactive strategies might include blind peer review, diverse editorial boards, mentorship programs targeting women scientists, and the development of inclusive language guidelines. Ultimately, addressing gender imbalances in scientific publishing isn’t merely a matter of fairness, but a critical step toward maximizing the potential of the scientific community and accelerating discovery.

The study’s findings, revealing underrepresentation not necessarily stemming from publication bias but mirroring existing disparities within STEM fields, align with a fundamental principle of clarity. The research elegantly strips away potential complications – inherent biases in peer review – to reveal a simpler, if disheartening, truth regarding representation. As Paul Erdős once stated, “A mathematician knows a lot of things, but knows nothing deeply.” This mirrors the necessity of acknowledging the surface-level data-the numbers-before delving into complex causal explanations. The article prioritizes what is over what might be, a commendable reduction to essential understanding. It is a focused examination, unburdened by superfluous conjecture, and offers a direct view of the current state.

The Remaining Questions

The study clarifies a point often obscured by reflexive accusation: disparity in publication is not necessarily evidence of disparity in review. The data suggests the bottleneck isn’t at the gate, but further upstream – within the structures generating the scientists themselves. This is not an exoneration, but a redirection. To focus solely on the latter stages of the publishing process, while ignoring the persistent imbalances in STEM participation, is to polish the symptoms while neglecting the disease.

Future work should move beyond simple counts of authorship. The nuances of contribution – not merely ordinal position – deserve attention. What specific barriers prevent women from assuming leadership roles within research teams, regardless of the review process? And how do these internal dynamics, these unwritten rules of collaboration, perpetuate the observed patterns? Bibliometrics offer a map, but the terrain itself requires ethnographic exploration.

Ultimately, the enduring question isn’t whether the system is fair, but whether it is efficient. A system that fails to fully utilize the talent available to it is, by definition, flawed. The study strips away much of the unnecessary noise, leaving only the stark reality: representation matters, not as an end in itself, but as a prerequisite for progress. What remains, then, is the uncomfortable task of addressing the root causes, however complex and deeply ingrained they may be.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10268.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-14 23:22