scholarly journals Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e4000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaroslava V. Valentova ◽  
Emma Otta ◽  
Maria Luisa Silva ◽  
Alan G. McElligott
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Earth Sciences ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
National Council ◽  
Ranking System ◽  
System 2 ◽  
Research Ranking ◽  
Female Scientists ◽  
Brazilian Science

Despite significant progress, there is still a gender gap in science all over the world, especially at senior levels. Some progressive countries are recognizing the need to address barriers to gender equality in order to retain their best scientists and innovators, and ensure research excellence and social and economic returns on the investment made by taxpayers each year on training women scientists. We investigated the gender distribution of: (i) the productivity scholarship (PS) holders of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq,N= 13,625), (ii) the members of the Brazilian Academy of Science (Academia Brasileira de Ciências, ABC,N= 899), and (iii) the amount of funding awarded for top quality research (“Universal” Call of CNPq,N= 3,836), between the years of 2013 and 2014. Our findings show evidence for gender imbalances in all the studied indicators of Brazilian science. We found that female scientists were more often represented among PS holders at the lower levels of the research ranking system (2). By contrast, male scientists were more often found at higher levels (1A and 1B) of PS holders, indicating the top scientific achievement, both in “Engineering, Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences”, and “Life Sciences”. This imbalance was not found in Humanities and Social Sciences. Only 14% of the ABC members were women. Humanities and Applied Social Sciences had a relatively low representation of women in the Academy (3.7%) compared to Engineering, Exact and Earth Sciences: 54.9% and Life Sciences: 41.4%. Finally, female scientists obtained significantly more funding at the lower level of the research ranking system (2), whereas male scientists obtained significantly more funding at the higher levels (1A and 1B). Our results show strong evidence of a gender imbalance in Brazilian science. We hope that our findings will be used to stimulate reforms that will result in greater equality in Brazilian science, and elsewhere.

Women in science: from images to data

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Jami
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Women Scientists ◽  
Working Environment ◽  
Women In Science ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
Family Responsibilities ◽  
Working Lives ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of

Abstract In recent decades research in the social sciences, including in the history of science, has shown that women scientists continue to be depicted as exceptions to the rule that a normal scientist is a man. The underlying message is that being an outstanding scientist is incompatible with being an ordinary woman. From women scientists’ reported experiences, we learn that family responsibilities as well as sexism in their working environment are two major hindrances to their careers. This experience is now backed by statistical analysis, so that what used to be regarded as an individual problem for each woman of science can now be identified as a multi-layered social phenomenon, to be analysed and remedied as such. Over the last five years, international scientific unions have come together to address these issues, first through the Gender Gap in Science Project, and recently through the setting up of a Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science (SCGES) whose task is to foster measures to reduce the barriers that women scientists have to surmount in their working lives.

scholarly journals LEXICAL BUNDLES IN JOURNAL ARTICLES ACROSS ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Deny Arnos Kwary ◽  
Dewantoro Ratri ◽  
Almira F. Artha
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Lexical Bundles ◽  
Referential Expressions

This study focuses on the use of lexical bundles (LBs), their structural forms, and their functional classifications in journal articles of four academic disciplines: Health sciences, Life sciences, Physical sciences, and Social sciences. The corpus comprises 2,937,431 words derived from 400 journal articles which were equally distributed in the four disciplines. The results show that Physical sciences feature the most number of lexical bundles, while Health sciences comprise the least. When we pair-up the disciplines, we found that Physical sciences and Social sciences shared the most number of LBs. We also found that there were no LBs shared between Health sciences and Physical sciences, and neither between Health sciences and Social sciences. For the distribution of the structural forms, we found that the prepositional-based and the verb-based bundles were the most frequent forms (each of them accounts for 37.1% of the LBs, making a total of 74.2%). Within the verb-based bundles, the passive form can be found in 12 out of 23 LB types. Finally, for the functional classifications, the number of referential expressions (40 LBs) is a lot higher than those of discourse organizers (12 LBs) and stance expressions (10 LBs). The high frequency of LBs in the referential expressions can be related to the needs to refer to theories, concepts, data and findings of the study.

scholarly journals Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Veli-Matti Karhulahti ◽  
Hans-Joachim Backe
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities

Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.

The Pursuit of Meaning: Placing Biodiversity and Biography at the Center of Biology

2021 ◽  
pp. 002205742110268
Author(s):  
Joel I. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Life Science ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
Scientific Understanding ◽  
Conservation Funding ◽  
Female Scientists

Naturalists enrich our scientific understanding of biodiversity. However, just as countries have fallen behind on commitments to provide biodiversity conservation funding, so has the focus of life science stayed arm’s length. The purpose of this article is to consider why biodiversity should be the center of life sciences education and how biographies of Charles Darwin and the incorporation of female scientists allow important findings, paintings, and journaling as part of standard teachings. The addition of female naturalists will provide role models for diverse, underrepresented student populations. This article suggests that biodiversity and biography become central to hteaching life sciences while supplemented by other practices. Such reallocations provide students an opportunity to learn not only what these scientists discovered but how these individuals “developed” into scientists.

Onomantic and Semantic Considerations

1988 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred W. Riggs
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Real Life ◽  
The Other ◽  
Life Changes ◽  
Political Evolution ◽  
The World

Corning and Hines make a useful contribution to the study of politics by distinguishing sharply between “political development” and “political evolution.” Their emphasis on the multidisciplinary dimensions of real life changes as they occur (and have occurred) throughout the world is also needed. We must, assuredly, go beyond political science, both to the other social sciences (including economics) and also, notably, to the life sciences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document