Thread by @sfiscience

Today at SFI:

External Professor @DaniSBassett (@Penn) on addressing #inequity in the scientific community caused by #bias in #citation practices—focusing on the evidence of a growing #gender imbalance in the reference lists of #neuroscience research.

santafe.edu/events/citing-…

The proportion of #neuroscience papers with woman first or last authors grew from 1995 to 2018, but the undercitation of female authors actually *increased* in that time.

SFI's @DaniSBassett (@Penn) on #gender #inequity in the scientific community:

Undercitation of #neuroscience research with first or last woman authors appears to be driven predominantly by the reference lists of papers written by male-male teams.

This is not to say, however, that all men undercite women, or that women do not also undercite women:

How does composition of researcher social networks contribute to imbalances in the citation of man- or woman-authored #neuroscience papers? While researchers are more likely to work with those of their own #gender, #homophily only accounts for a small part of reference #inequity:

Self-citations and the effect of paper impact both make relatively small contributions to observed #gender #bias in the reference lists of #neuroscience research, contrasted against bias due to the gender of citing authors:

How to right the imbalances of #gender #bias in citation practices?

Distributional models call for equal allocation of recognition across all authors, or differential allocation by #merit/#need/#authority.

However, these models ignore opportunities for reparative #justice:

Here's the entire seminar from yesterday, "Envisioning an Equitable Future," on a study by SFI External Prof @DaniSBassett and her colleagues on citation #gender #bias in #neuroscience research — and some ideas about how to correct for observed imbalances: