The Gender Gap in Scholarly Self-Promotion on Social Media

Self-promotion in science is ubiquitous but may not be exercised equally by men and women. Research on self-promotion in other domains suggests that, due to bias in self-assessment and adverse reactions to non-gender-conforming behaviors (``pushback''), women tend to self-promote less often than men. We test whether this pattern extends to scholars by examining self-promotion over six years using 23M Tweets about 2.8M research papers by 3.5M authors. Overall, women are about 28% less likely than men to self-promote their papers even after accounting for important confounds, and this gap has grown over time. Moreover, differential adoption of Twitter does not explain the gender gap, which is large even in relatively gender-balanced broad research areas, where bias in self-assessment and pushback are expected to be smaller. Further, the gap increases with higher performance and status, being most pronounced for productive women from top-ranked institutions who publish in high-impact journals. Critically, we find differential returns with respect to gender: while self-promotion is associated with increased tweets of papers, the increase is smaller for women than for men. Our findings suggest that self-promotion varies meaningfully by gender and help explain gender differences in the visibility of scientific ideas.

[1]  V. Arora,et al.  Taking the Time: The Implications of Workplace Assessment for Organizational Gender Inequality , 2023, American Sociological Review.

[2]  Yonghwan Kim,et al.  The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The effect of news recommendation algorithms in exacerbating inequalities in news engagement and social capital , 2023, New Media & Society.

[3]  Molly M. King,et al.  Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition , 2023, Nature Human Behaviour.

[4]  R. Costas,et al.  An open data set of scholars on Twitter , 2022, Quantitative Science Studies.

[5]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  OpenAlex: A fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts , 2022, ArXiv.

[6]  Jessi L. Smith,et al.  “Broad” Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals , 2022, Frontiers in Psychology.

[7]  Sandra González-Bailón,et al.  The Gender Divide in Wikipedia: Quantifying and Assessing the Impact of Two Feminist Interventions , 2022, Journal of Communication.

[8]  Daniel M. Romero,et al.  Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Lydia B. Chilton,et al.  What Makes Tweetorials Tick: How Experts Communicate Complex Topics on Twitter , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  B. Nogrady ‘I hope you die’: how the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists , 2021, Nature.

[11]  Emőke-Ágnes Horvát,et al.  Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  David Schweingruber,et al.  Impression Management , 2021, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[13]  S. Brooke,et al.  Trouble in programmer’s paradise: gender-biases in sharing and recognising technical knowledge on Stack Overflow , 2021 .

[14]  Zia Mehrabi,et al.  Digital technology helps remove gender bias in academia , 2021, Scientometrics.

[15]  A. Calmy,et al.  Cyber harassment of female scientists will not be the new norm , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[16]  T. Dehdarirad Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–2016) , 2020, PloS one.

[17]  David Jurgens,et al.  Author Mentions in Science News Reveal Wide-Spread Ethnic Bias , 2020, ArXiv.

[18]  M. Vaduganathan,et al.  Trends in Female Authorship: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Annals of Thoracic Surgery. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[19]  L. McDonald,et al.  Effects of gender harassment on science popularization behaviors , 2020, Public understanding of science.

[20]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Towards a More Realistic Citation Model: The Key Role of Research Team Sizes , 2020, Entropy.

[21]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[22]  Daniel S. Himmelstein,et al.  Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles , 2020, Accountability in research.

[23]  David T Cooke,et al.  Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[24]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.

[25]  Kathleen Searles,et al.  Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work , 2020, PloS one.

[26]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Self-Citation, Cumulative Advantage, and Gender Inequality in Science , 2020, Sociological Science.

[27]  Candace Miller,et al.  Balancing Research and Service in Academia: Gender, Race, and Laboratory Tasks , 2020, Gender & Society.

[28]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study , 2019, BMJ.

[29]  Yuxiao Dong,et al.  A Review of Microsoft Academic Services for Science of Science Studies , 2019, Front. Big Data.

[30]  R. Merchant,et al.  Gender Differences in Twitter Use and Influence Among Health Policy and Health Services Researchers. , 2019, JAMA internal medicine.

[31]  James Zou,et al.  Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering , 2019, Nature.

[32]  Jizheng Jia,et al.  Gender Prediction Based on Chinese Name , 2019, NLPCC.

[33]  Vivek Kumar Singh,et al.  Disciplinary Variations in Altmetric Coverage of Scholarly Articles , 2019, ISSI.

[34]  Judd B. Kessler,et al.  The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion , 2019 .

[35]  M. Leary Self-Presentation , 2019 .

[36]  R. Jagsi,et al.  Gender variations in citation distributions in medicine are very small and due to self-citation and journal prestige , 2019, eLife.

[37]  Emoke-Ágnes Horvát,et al.  Gender Differences in the Global Music Industry: Evidence from MusicBrainz and The Echo Nest , 2019, ICWSM.

[38]  Brian Uzzi,et al.  Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators , 2019, JAMA.

[39]  Diego F. M. Oliveira,et al.  Women who win prizes get less money and prestige , 2019, Nature.

[40]  Sune Lehmann,et al.  The chaperone effect in scientific publishing , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Janet W. Levy,et al.  Social media for scientists , 2018, Nature Cell Biology.

[42]  Erin P. Hennes,et al.  Addressing Unintended Consequences of Gender Diversity Interventions on Women’s Sense of Belonging in STEM , 2018, Sex Roles.

[43]  Lucía Santamaría,et al.  Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services , 2018, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[44]  M. Ferguson,et al.  How gender determines the way we speak about professionals , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Jaigris Hodson,et al.  Women scholars’ experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame , 2018, New Media Soc..

[46]  A. van de Rijt,et al.  The Matthew effect in science funding , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Rebecca Foust how it works , 2017, The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative.

[48]  M. Zheng,et al.  Correlation study of Framingham risk score and vascular dementia , 2017, Medicine.

[49]  Chris Parnin,et al.  Someone like me: How does peer parity influence participation of women on stack overflow? , 2017, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[50]  Emoke-Ágnes Horvát,et al.  Gender Differences in Equity Crowdfunding , 2017, HCOMP.

[51]  Jim Hamilton,et al.  Are There Gender Differences in Professional Self-Promotion? An Empirical Case Study of LinkedIn Profiles Among Recent MBA Graduates , 2017, ICWSM.

[52]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language , 2017, ICWSM.

[53]  L. Vesterlund,et al.  Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability , 2017 .

[54]  J. Nathan Matias,et al.  FollowBias: Supporting Behavior Change toward Gender Equality by Networked Gatekeepers on Social Media , 2017, CSCW.

[55]  Zahra Ashktorab,et al.  Identifying Women's Experiences With and Strategies for Mitigating Negative Effects of Online Harassment , 2017, CSCW.

[56]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions , 2017, CSCW.

[57]  John C. Smart Gender Equity in Academic Rank and Salary , 2017 .

[58]  Ruben C. Arslan,et al.  Age and gender differences in self-esteem-A cross-cultural window. , 2016, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[59]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[60]  Qing Ke,et al.  A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter , 2016, PloS one.

[61]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time , 2016, ArXiv.

[62]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Inferring Gender from Names on the Web: A Comparative Evaluation of Gender Detection Methods , 2016, WWW.

[63]  Vetle I. Torvik,et al.  Ethnea -- an instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database , 2016 .

[64]  Daniel B. Larremore,et al.  Gender, Productivity, and Prestige in Computer Science Faculty Hiring Networks , 2016, WWW.

[65]  D. Khullar,et al.  Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in 2014. , 2015, JAMA.

[66]  Yang Song,et al.  An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications , 2015, WWW.

[67]  Timothy D. Bowman,et al.  Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[68]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[69]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact , 2015, Online Inf. Rev..

[70]  K. Coffman Evidence on Self-Stereotyping and the Contribution of Ideas , 2014 .

[71]  Katherine L. Milkman,et al.  The science of sharing and the sharing of science , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[72]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[73]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text , 2014, ICWSM.

[74]  Laura Huang,et al.  Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[75]  M. Graham,et al.  Scientific Diversity Interventions , 2014, Science.

[76]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[77]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.

[78]  Roberta Kwok,et al.  Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark , 2013, Nature.

[79]  Hans Peter Peters,et al.  Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[80]  D. Eagleman Why Public Dissemination of Science Matters: A Manifesto , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[81]  Emily S. Darling,et al.  The role of twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication , 2013, ArXiv.

[82]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship , 2012, PloS one.

[83]  David Bamman,et al.  Gender identity and lexical variation in social media , 2012, 1210.4567.

[84]  A. Castle Does it work? , 2011, BDJ.

[85]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011, Inf. Serv. Use.

[86]  Jason Priem,et al.  How and why scholars cite on Twitter , 2010, ASIST.

[87]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Prejudice Toward Female Leaders: Backlash Effects and Women’s Impression Management Dilemma , 2010 .

[88]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Disruptions in Women's Self-Promotion: The Backlash Avoidance Model 1 , 2010 .

[89]  渡部 充,et al.  書評 リンダ・バブコック、サラ・ラシェーヴァー著 森永康子訳『そのひとことが言えたら…--働く女性のための統合的交渉術』 Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever: Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide , 2006 .

[90]  Bertolt Brecht The manifesto , 2002 .

[91]  Shelley J. Correll,et al.  Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self‐Assessments1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[92]  Marie Wade Women and Salary Negotiation: The Costs of Self-Advocacy , 2001 .

[93]  R. Janoff-Bulman,et al.  Viewpoint: The Dilemma of Self-Advocacy for Women: Another Case of Blaming the Victim? , 1996 .

[94]  C. Stevens,et al.  Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. , 1995 .

[95]  C. Bates,et al.  Two investigations of “female modesty” in achievement situations , 1993 .

[96]  L. Heatherington,et al.  Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement , 1992 .

[97]  A. R.,et al.  Review of literature , 1969, American Potato Journal.

[98]  D. Barker Global gender disparities in science , 2013 .

[99]  David M Levinson,et al.  First Mover Advantages , 2011 .

[100]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations , 2008 .

[101]  J. Hilbe Negative Binomial Regression: Preface , 2007 .

[102]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women , 2001 .

[103]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[104]  Romin W. Tafarodi,et al.  Gender and self-esteem. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[105]  S. Heinzl [Our sources]. , 1992, Medizinische Monatsschrift fur Pharmazeuten.

[106]  Eran Shor,et al.  Women Who Break the Glass Ceiling Get a “Paper Cut”: Gender, Fame, and Media Sentiment , 2022 .