Gender differences in research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system

Authors: Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, Alessandro Caprasecca

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., Caprasecca, A. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79(3), 517-539

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1812.07851v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The study "Gender differences in research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system" by Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, and Alessandro Caprasecca confirms that there are significant differences in research productivity between men and women in scientific-technological disciplines within the Italian university system. However, these differences are smaller than previously reported in the literature and are more noticeable for quantitative performance indicators than other indicators. The study also highlights important sectorial specificities in the gap between genders. While men generally perform better, there are several scientific sectors where women's performance is not inferior. The authors suggest that ongoing efforts to address gender inequality may be contributing to a decline in the size of this gap over time. This study adds to existing literature on gender differences in research productivity and provides valuable insights into how these differences manifest within a specific academic context.
AI-generated keywords: Gender Research productivity Italian academic system Quantitative performance indicators Gender inequality

AI-generated Key Points

  • There are significant differences in research productivity between men and women in scientific-technological disciplines within the Italian university system.
  • Differences are smaller than previously reported in the literature and more noticeable for quantitative performance indicators.
  • Men generally perform better, but there are several scientific sectors where women's performance is not inferior.
  • Ongoing efforts to address gender inequality may be contributing to a decline in the size of this gap over time.
  • The study adds to existing literature on gender differences in research productivity and provides valuable insights into how these differences manifest within a specific academic context.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: The literature dedicated to analysis of the difference in research productivity between the sexes tends to agree in indicating better performance for men. This study enters in the vein of work on the subject. Through bibliometric examination of the entire population of research personnel working in the scientific-technological disciplines of Italian university system, it confirms the presence of significant differences in productivity between men and women. But such differences result as being smaller than reported in a large part of the literature, confirming an ongoing tendency towards decline, and are also seen as more noticeable for quantitative performance indicators than other indicators. The gap between the sexes presents important sectorial specificities. In spite of the generally better performance of men, it can not be ignored that there are a significant number of scientific sectors in which the performance of women does not result as inferior.

Submitted to arXiv on 19 Dec. 2018

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.