Analysis of the association between Altmetric scores and the gender of first and last authors of articles published in top cardiovascular research journals shows that women receive on average less attention for their work.
Gender diversity at the workplace improves innovation, productivity, and profitability. In the life sciences, gender diversity ultimately benefits research and patient care1,2,3,4. Although the share of women in the life sciences has been increasing, the transition into senior roles stagnates and a relevant gender gap remains5. While awareness is rising and progress toward gender equity has been made, women still face inequities impacting their career advancement. Especially for academic careers, research funding, publications, and citations are predictive of academic rank, however, previous research has shown gender-based disparities for all of these5.
Among the correlates of academic career progress of men and women, gender differences in citations have received increased scholarly attention6,7. Citations serve as the institutionalized metric for the impact of academic work and play a central role in academic advancement, from hiring to promotion8. Prior research has shown that women receive fewer citations than men, even for work of comparable quality9. As differences in the quality of work cannot explain gendered citation differentials, the contributing factors to women receiving fewer citations than men remain to be investigated.
Attention to research articles is a theoretical antecedent to citations since scholars can only cite articles they are aware of. Attention to research may thus serve as an early indicator of citation potential. Any gender difference in attention to research may conceivably perpetuate citation differentials between women and men. At the same time, differing visibility of men and women researchers or different engagement in promotion activities, e.g., due to time or budget constraints, may give rise to a gender attention gap.
In this study, we analyze potential gender disparities in the attention to research, subject to holding the content and quality of the underlying research constant to the degree feasible. To that end, we focus on the top field journals of a medical specialty and select cardiology and cardiovascular research as our empirical setting. Past research has documented a general association between attention and citations in this specialty10, that we can build upon to analyze potential gender differences. Furthermore, past research has identified cardiology as a subfield of life science research where women are particularly challenged in their career advancement11. Gender differences in attention to research may be an early contributor to concomitant citation differentials and, ultimately, advancement in the field.
Investigating more than 6000 articles in the top five cardiology and cardiovascular field journals (2015–2021) with corresponding article-level Altmetric Attention Scores (ASS), we find that women first and last authors receive significantly less attention for their research and that lower attention scores correlate with fewer downstream citations. Importantly, we show that women authors receive up to 20% fewer citations than men to articles that receive the same amount of attention. This gendered correlation of attention to citations afflicts articles in the top quartile of the ASS distribution and might markedly impact scientific discourses.
Results
Gender differences in overall attention and sources of attention
Our sample consists of 6068 and 6181 articles for which we can designate the gender of the first or last author, respectively. In this sample, we first investigate the relative difference in the overall AAS as well as its constituent score components between women and men serving in the first author position (Fig. 1a) and the last author position (Fig. 1b). First authorship by women relative to men is associated with an 11.2% (95%CI -18.5%; -3.9%, p = 0.003) lower AAS. For the last authors, the discount is slightly smaller with women having an 8.7% (95% CI -17.1%; -0.1%, p = 0.044) lower AAS than men on average. We next disaggregate our data by attention source, including News mentions, Blogs, Wikipedia entries, Policy documents, and Twitter mentions. We also stratify the Twitter data by the demographics of underlying user groups. We find that the reduced attention to research by women first and last authors mostly stems from the social media platform Twitter (Fig. 1a, b). The analysis of different Twitter user groups further reveals that the discount is driven both by members of the public and members of the scientific community. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that both women as first and last authors tend to be less represented in their research in policy documents, albeit this trend does not statistically distinguish from a null effect.
Gender differences in citations
We next investigate whether this gender difference in attention is also correlated with gender differences in citations. In our sample, we find that women first authors receive 5.6% (95%CI −10.2%; −1.1%, p = 0.014) and women last authors 6.6% (95%CI −11.8%; −1.4%, p = 0.014) fewer citations, on average (Fig. 2a). Having established this gender difference in citations, we then investigate the conditional correlation between AAS and citations stratified by author gender. Figure 2b shows that women first authors receive fewer citations to research that attracted the same level of attention as men. This gender difference is statistically significant for articles in the top 25% of the AAS distribution (i.e., log(AAS + 1) of 4.5/raw AAS of 90). On average, this gender difference amounts to a 20.0% lower correlational conversion rate (95%CI, −30.0%; −10.0%, p < 0.001) from AAS to citations for women versus men first authors. We observe a similar trend for last authors (−11.6%, 95%CI −24.6%; 1.6%, p = 0.086). This implies that women first (last) authors receive, on average, fewer citations than men first (last) authors for research that attracts a lot of attention and citations to begin with and might thus be more likely to spur public debate and scientific progress.
Authorship gender composition and attention to research
An additional analysis of the combination of first and last author gender (Fig. 3) further reveals that accounting for confounders, articles authored by both women as first and last authors receive the lowest AAS (Fig. 3a), the lowest number of citations (Fig. 3b), and lowest correlational conversion rate between AAS and citations (Fig. 3c). Publications authored by men first and last authors receive the highest values on these outcome measures, whereas mixed gender author teams range in between. This gradient in effect sizes supports the overall finding that gender matters for attention to research, potentially putting women at a relative disadvantage. This analysis is limited to 5678 articles with at least two authors and where both first and last author gender can be designated.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this study is the first to document the presence and size of a gender bias in attention to cardiovascular research and to decompose this gender attention gap by source. Additionally, we create a correlational link between attention and citations, which also appears to be gendered. Earlier investigations of the correlation between AAS and subsequent citations of research showed only a weak correlation in top tier journals in cardiology and cardiovascular research12,13. However, the rising use of social media to disseminate science likely increases the importance of the AAS for forward citations, as reflected in more recent research14,15,16. Our study extends these findings by estimating the conditional correlation between AAS and citations and, importantly, stratifying the conditional correlation by gender.
Together, the identified correlational cascade from attention to citation differentials between women and men may pinpoint a root cause for gendered recognition of research contributions. The scientific community has gained a robust understanding of gender differences in recognition of work at later stages of the academic lifecycle, like gender differences in promotion, the awarding of scientific prizes, and the representation of men and women in esteemed scientific societies17,18,19,20. Our results, meanwhile, shed light on a possible, much earlier starting point of gender differences in scientific recognition—the attention paid to a research article—that may conceivably contribute to downward spirals of recognition as the academic lifecycle continues.
The presented findings hold several implications for science policy and practice. As the importance of broader attention metrics becomes increasingly recognized by the institutions of science21, from funders to universities, it seems important to raise awareness of potential differences in attention to research and likely consequences for more established metrics like citations. Awareness is the first step for researchers to make conscious decisions about how to represent their work to the scientific community and the broader public22. Meanwhile, institutions may need to consider how to formalize financial and non-financial (e.g., media consulting) support for their research staff when it comes to professionally disseminating research findings and should consider equity measures. Our research indicates that gender equity considerations are likely important for designing such support structures, whereas similar needs might exist at a more intersectional basis (race, ethnicity etc.)23. For the scientific research enterprise at large, attention allocation will likely play a central role in determining what science impacts cumulative knowledge building. As scientific production proliferates, scientists become ever more constrained in the content they can absorb and use in their own research24. The process of attention allocation to research may, therefore, become more active field of research to promote evidence-based science policy and practice.
In that vein, our study also highlights avenues for future research. For example, we still lack a clear understanding of the antecedents of the observed gender discount in attention to cardiovascular research as well as potential consequences, for example, gendered influences of research on interventions and public policies. As a starting point, analyses of gender differences across scientific disciplines may help to better understand root causes and, for example, test whether a higher representation of women in a discipline helps to level the playing field. While not the explicit focus of this current study, past research has suggested that homophily influences citations (i.e., men tend to cite men and women tend to cite women), although empirical findings on the conjecture have been mixed25,26. Given that attention scores appear to correlate with citations, one might suspect that gender differences in attention might be more pronounced in fields like cardiology with relatively fewer women scientists and thus precede any citation differentials. Another area for future research relates to gender differences in attention and the subsequent impact of research on policy. Although our limited sample precludes drawing definite conclusions, the trend of women’s research being cited at a lower rate than men’s in policy documents warrants further attention. Prior research has, for example, indicated that women researchers were less heard than expected compared to male peers, accounting for scientific expertise, during the formation of the societal response to the COVID19-crisis27,28. We therefore submit that further analyses of gender differences with respect to the impact of scientific work beyond citations, like informed policy making, is needed.
Limitations of our study include potential bias due to omitted variables, possible gender misclassification in a large set of authors, and more granular time variance in AAS and citations (beyond the year-month-level we account for).
In conclusion, this study shows that women receive less attention for their work (lower AAS) than men in the top cardiology and cardiovascular research journals. Gender differences in AAS were mostly driven by social media posts on Twitter and correlate with fewer citations for women scholars, both in absolute and relative terms. Causes of this gap can only be speculated at this point. Assuming homogeneous quality of the underlying research given the selected sample, contributing factors may include gender bias among peers and other social media users, but also differential self-promotion patterns22. This supports recent initiatives to increase the visibility of women academics, but also calls to encourage women to engage in social media platforms and actively disseminate their work. That said, promotional approaches seem constrained by the fact that women receive differential recognition in form of citations for work that garners equal attention.
Methods
Sample creation
To analyze gender differences in attention to cardiology and cardiovascular research, we first identified the top five field journals per the Clarivate Journal Citation Report (2020). Using the unique International Standard Serial Numbers (journal ISSNs) as identifiers, we retrieved original research articles from the central bibliometric database in the life sciences, the PubMed database administered by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. We focused on articles published between 2015/01/01 and 2021/12/31 (or since the first issue in the case of JAMA Cardiology), a time window for which the relatively new AAS reliably tracks attention to articles. We retrieved the AAS and its constituent score components from the Altmetric application programming interface (API).
We focus on the first and last authors because of a long-standing authorship norm in the life sciences. The first author of life science articles usually represents the junior author who executed the research, while the last author is generally the senior author who often conceives of and funds the research. To designate the probable gender of thousands of these authors in our dataset, we use the genderize.io database that draws on several sources, like Social Security Administration records and social media profiles, to assign a probability that a given forename is more likely held by men or women11,22,29. The average probability for correct gender designation in our dataset was 96.3% for first authors and 97.0% for last authors. Within our sample of high-impact Cardiology and Cardiovascular research, we found fewer manuscripts authored by women as first (31.74%) or last (19.97%) authors. Our final sample consists of 6068 articles for which we could designate the first author gender and 6181 articles for which we could designate the last author gender.
Statistics and reproducibility
We use ordinary least squares regressions to analyze the relationship between our key independent variable, lead author gender, and our dependent variables of attention and citations. We follow prior research in log-converting the AAS and its components to account for the scores’ skewness16. We control for an encompassing set of confounders, including the timing of publication at the year-month-level (attention accrual may vary with time), research quality (using journal dummy variables), and social network exposure (proxied by the number of coauthors). We also include a dummy variable that controls for COVID-19-related articles since COVID-19 research received heightened attention. COVID-19-focused papers accounted for 1.6% of our sample, and we do not find gender differences in AAS in this subset. We limit our choice of control variables to factors that may be spuriously related to both gender and AAS but are unlikely to mechanistically explain their relationship. We use STATA software (Version 17) for regression analyses and GraphPad PRISM software (Version 8) for the creation of Figures.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The data underlying our analysis is available at the Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OAYQA8.
Code availability
The code for replicating our analysis in Stata 17 is available at the Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OAYQA8.
References
-
Koning, R., Samila, S. & Ferguson, J. P. Who do we invent for? Patents by women focus more on women’s health, but few women get to invent. Science 372, 1345–1348 (2021).
Google Scholar
-
Parks, A. L. & Redberg, R. F. Women in medicine and patient outcomes: equal rights for better work? JAMA Intern. Med. 177, 161 (2017).
Google Scholar
-
Rotenstein, L. S. & Jena, A. B. Lost Taussigs: the consequences of gender discrimination in medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 2255–2257 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Greenwood, B. N., Carnahan, S. & Huang, L. Patient-physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8569–8574 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Blumenthal, D. M. et al. Sex differences in faculty rank among academic cardiologists in the United States. Circulation 135, 506–517 (2017).
Google Scholar
-
Nielsen M. W. & Andersen J. P. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2012208118 (2021).
-
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504, 211–213 (2013).
Google Scholar
-
Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press (1973).
-
Lerchenmueller, S. O. The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Res. Policy 47, 1007–1017 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Barakat, A. F. et al. Correlation of altmetric attention score with article citations in cardiovascular research. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72, 952–953 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Lerchenmüller, C., Lerchenmueller, M. J. & Sorenson, O. Long-term analysis of sex differences in prestigious authorships in cardiovascular research supported by the National Institutes of Health. Circulation 137, 880–882 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Huang, W., Wang, P. & Wu, Q. A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals. PLoS ONE 13, e0194962 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Patel, R. B., Vaduganathan, M., Bhatt, D. L. & Bonow, R. O. Characterizing high-performing articles by altmetric score in major cardiovascular journals. JAMA Cardiol. 3, 1249–1251 (2018).
Google Scholar
-
Rotenstein, L. S. et al. Differences in gender representation in the altmetric top 100. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 37, 590–592 (2022).
Google Scholar
-
Ladeiras-Lopes, R. et al. Twitter promotion is associated with higher citation rates of cardiovascular articles: the ESC journals randomized study. Eur. Heart J. 43, 1794–1798 (2022).
Google Scholar
-
Parwani, P. et al. Relationship of altmetric attention score to overall citations and downloads for papers published in JACC. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76, 757–759 (2020).
Google Scholar
-
Rossiter, M. W. The Matthew-Matilda effect in science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 23, 325–341 (1993).
Google Scholar
-
Amrein, K., Langmann, A., Fahrleitner-Pammer, A., Pieber, T. R. & Zollner-Schwetz, I. Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gend. Med. 8, 378–387 (2011).
Google Scholar
-
Jena, A. B., Khullar, D., Ho, O., Olenski, A. R. & Blumenthal, D. M. Sex differences in academic rank in US medical schools in 2014. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 314, 1149–1158 (2015).
Google Scholar
-
Hoisl, K. & Mariani, M. It’sa man’s job: income and the gender gap in industrial research. Manag. Sci. 63, 766–790 (2017).
Google Scholar
-
Lopez, M., Chan, T. M., Thoma, B., Arora, V. M. & Trueger, N. S. The social media editor at medical journals: responsibilities, goals, barriers, and facilitators. Acad. Med.: J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 94, 701 (2019).
Google Scholar
-
Lerchenmueller, M. J., Sorenson, O. & Jena, A. B. Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. BMJ. 367, l6573 (2019).
-
Kozlowski, D., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R. & Monroe-White, T. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2113067119 (2022).
Google Scholar
-
Hoisl, K., Lerchenmüller, C., Lerchenmueller M., Schmallenbach L. The power of attention: early indications of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the direction of scientific research in the life sciences. Resilience and Ingenuity Global Innovation Responses to COVID-19. 2022.
-
Tekles, A., Auspurg, K. & Bornmann, L. Same-gender citations do not indicate a substantial gender homophily bias. Plos one 17, e0274810 (2022).
Google Scholar
-
Ghiasi G., Mongeon P., Sugimoto C. & Larivière V. Gender homophily in citations. Paper/Poster presented at: STI 2018 Conference Proceedings (2018).
-
Lerchenmüller, C., Schmallenbach, L., Jena, A. B. & Lerchenmueller, M. J. Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19. BMJ Open 11, e045176 (2021).
Google Scholar
-
Andersen, J. P., Nielsen, M. W., Simone, N. L., Lewis, R. E. & Jagsi, R. COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected. Elife. 9 (2020).
-
Chatterjee, P. & Werner, R. M. Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2114509 (2021).
Google Scholar
Acknowledgements
This research has received funding from the Dr. Hans Riegel Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the funding programme ʻOpen Access Publikationskostenʼ as well as by Heidelberg University. LS is supported by the Joachim Herz Foundation.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.J.L., L.S., and C.L. devised the original idea. M.J.L. and L.S. assembled and analyzed the data. M.B. reviewed relevant literature. M.J.L., L.S., and C.L. wrote the manuscript, M.B. edited the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
M.J.L. is a co-founder and shareholder of AaviGen GmbH, a cardiovascular gene therapy company, which is unrelated to this article. The remaining authors have no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Biology thanks Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes, Daniel M. Blumenthal and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Joao Valente. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Peer review file
Reporting Summary
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lerchenmueller, M.J., Schmallenbach, L., Bley, M. et al. Gender disparities in altmetric attention scores for cardiovascular research.
Commun Biol 6, 741 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05058-9
-
Received: 15 November 2022
-
Accepted: 20 June 2023
-
Published: 17 July 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05058-9