This bias in authorship and citations contributes to the underrepresentation and undervaluation of women's contributions to research. Unconscious bias, network effects (where male scientists tend to cite other men within their networks), and the underrepresentation of women in senior roles also contribute to this issue.

Recognition & Awards:

Receipt of prestigious awards within academia mirrors that of authorship and citation trends. Women are underrepresented among recipients of high-prestige awards, despite having similar qualifications and scholarly achievements. This disparity affects individual careers and perpetuates a cycle of underrecognition that hinders the advancement of gender equality in academia.

Further investigation reveals that women are more likely to be recognized for service or teaching rather than scholarly research. The existence of 'women-only' awards, while aimed at increasing recognition, further contributes to the segregation of women's accomplishments in the scientific community. Another critical factor is the nomination process itself. The persistent 'Matilda Effect' suggests that despite efforts to increase female nominations, men still receive a disproportionately high number of scholarly awards relative to their presence in the nomination pool, potentially tied to influences of implicit bias. This imbalance not only reflects ongoing gender biases but also underscores the need for a more equitable approach to recognizing scientific achievements across genders.

Concept

Digging deeper, we find a variety of institutional factors that create hurdles for women who choose a career in research.

Funding Allocation:

Women consistently encounter difficulties in obtaining funding for their research. Over 15 years of funding, the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) reported women not only submitted fewer grant applications than men but also faced lower success rates [Burns et al]. This is corroborated by data from NIH (USA), UK, Danish Research Council, and European Research Council, which also indicate women held fewer large-scale grants and received less funding overall.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the US found women to be as likely to be funded as men, but the percentage of women submitting grant applications was less than expected in every field (with the exception of engineering). Women are also less likely to report “research” as their primary work activity.

Workplace Climate:

Challenges for women in academia extend beyond funding disparities. In a census of 245,270 tenure-track and tenured faculty in the US, researchers found women are more likely than men to leave academia at every stage of their careers.

The reasons faculty leave academia are gendered. Both women and men consider leaving academia for professional reasons, such as low compensation or the pressure to publish, and to pursue a better work-life balance. However, women are more likely than men to cite workplace climate as a consideration for leaving academia. Poor workplace climate may encompass discrimination, dysfunctional leadership or feelings of not belonging.

“Many faculty are expected to just keep going, no matter what is expected of them. There needs to be a real, concerted effort to think about what the workplace looks like and what needs to be in place to support faculty.”
- Sociologist Kimberlee Shauman

Hiring Practices:

Women also face tougher standards during the hiring process. Research indicates search committees exhibit biases favouring male applicants - these biases manifest in assumptions about women’s commitment to their careers as well as their competency.

For example, parenthood exacerbates gender disparities. Women face the "maternal wall bias”, which occurs when colleagues view mothers or pregnant women as less competent and committed to their work. Combined with traditional gender roles and responsibilities, this contributes to stalled career growth for women who take longer maternity leaves.

Search committees also actively considered women’s - but not men’s - relationship status when hiring junior faculty, as they assumed women were not “moveable” if they had partnered with academic or high-status jobs. Conversely, all female partners of male applicants were seen as moveable.

This phenomenon may differ by region and field. For example, faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities in Nordic universities viewed female candidates as both more competent and hirable than their male counterparts.

Gender Biases:

Throughout this article, we see that gender stereotypes and implicit biases, both in academia and society, underlie women's hindered progress in science. Stereotypes associating agency with scientists and men, but community with women, mean that women are perceived as lacking the qualities needed to be successful scientists. Implicit biases can manifest as negative assumptions about women’s commitment to their careers as well as their competency (as seen in our section on Hiring Practices).

Overall, this contributes to discrimination and prejudice against female scientists.

Identifying the Issue

Having delved into the data and statistics to grasp a fundamental understanding of just a few of the numerous challenges women in STEM encounter regarding inequality, we are now poised to take the logical next step: actively identifying and addressing these issues and seeking effective solutions.

There is substantial evidence suggesting that implicit bias significantly contributes to the less favourable evaluation of women's abilities in academic research, teaching, and leadership, often standing out as a primary factor (LERU, 2018). The putative cause of gender bias manifests in two forms: explicit and implicit. Explicit bias involves a deliberate and conscious assessment of an entity. In contrast, implicit bias operates subconsciously, influencing judgments without the individual's awareness. These biases stem from various origins, including stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, all of which shape the societal expectations placed on members of specific social groups (Llorens et al., 2021).

As explored in previous the sections above, gender bias affects access to power and resources, including disparities in salaries, awards, recognition, citations, and research funding. However, when bias is properly understood and recognized, it can be mitigated and should be overcome and "is an obligation of institutions and their leaders to act against bias at all levels and foster an institutional culture in which bias is clearly understood as a breach of the principle of meritocracy" (LERU, 2018). Despite advancements, "the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths,” with a significant disparity in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals featuring fewer women authors (Holman, 2018).

The evolving gender gap is a systemic issue manifesting across multiple levels:

• Cultural, involving societal beliefs and ideologies;

• Institutional, involving policies and procedures;

• Interpersonal, involving norms of interaction;

• and Individual, involving attitudes, cognitions, and behaviour (Schmader, 2022).

Thus, addressing the systemic barriers that hinder women's full participation and success in STEM necessitates a multi-level approach since “addressing change at only one level is likely to be ineffective if changes do not also occur at other levels” (Schmader, 2022). This underscores the necessity for a comprehensive strategy that encompasses education, mentoring, and academic publishing reforms.

At the end of the day, the STEM “gender gap will not close without further and systemic reforms” in these areas, highlighting the critical need for concerted, concentrated, and - arguably more importantly - sustained efforts to address the deep-rooted biases and barriers facing scientists (Holman, 2018).

Identifying Potential Solutions & Strategies

Despite a heightened awareness of gender inequity in academia and the emergence of initiatives aimed at enhancing diversity, progress towards equality is painstakingly slow, with persistent inequalities (Llorens et al., 2021). To effectively tackle the issue of gender discrimination in STEM, a comprehensive, big-picture approach is essential for overcoming systemic barriers. Enhancing policy interventions at a national level is crucial for addressing gender-based harassment and discrimination more robustly. By adopting a holistic perspective, efforts should concentrate on implementing changes across various layers of governance and institutional structures, including local, provincial, and federal levels (Kong et al., 2020). Such coordinated action by these entities is vital to promote female representation from the ground up, starting with early education initiatives. Furthermore, the establishment of more robust policies against gender discrimination, alongside fostering workplace practices that champion diversity, are key steps forward. Additionally, developing refined metrics for evaluating gender discrimination will enable the formulation of more effective policies, ensuring a targeted and impactful approach to achieving gender equity in STEM fields (Kong et al., 2020).

Having explored the broader concepts, let's now delve into the nuanced, targeted strategies that academic institutions can employ to catalyze and nurture meaningful change (Llorens et al., 2021).

Institutional-Level Interventions:

• Pursue alternatives to single-blind review to enhance peer review transparency and address gender bias. Rodgers (2017) advocates for the adoption of double-blind review processes to conceal authors' identities, thereby reducing bias.

• Schmader (2022) emphasizes the need for a multifaceted approach to dismantling systemic barriers, including organizational and educational culture changes at institutional, interpersonal, and individual levels. This includes interventions to boost young girls’ STEM experiences and self-efficacy, alongside systematic modifications to STEM environments to increase gender diversity and foster a more inclusive culture.

• Langin (2020) calls for universities to perform internal analyses of faculty pay to identify and correct any salary disparities, particularly among highly productive women, using objective metrics like the h-index. This approach addresses the risk of losing talented women scientists due to ongoing inequities.

• Encourage academic journals to scrutinize potential gender biases by making demographic data of authors and reviewers accessible, promoting diversity in publishing practices (Murray et al., 2019; Squazzoni et al., 2017; Sweet, 2021).

• Implement diversity in review and editorial panels and develop alternative citation metrics to reduce the influence of gender bias (Cameron et al., 2016).

• Funding agencies should actively monitor for gender disparities and ensure gender equity in grant applications and awards. This might involve setting gender targets to encourage more applications from women researchers (Niederle, 2017; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2011).

Award-Level Interventions:

• The findings indicate a clear link between the proportion of women in the nomination pool and their success in winning awards. To increase this representation, prize committees, particularly those dominated by men, must make a concerted effort to nominate more women. This is crucial as men in committees tend to favour candidates who resemble themselves, perpetuating gender biases (McPherson et al., 1992). Gendered information networks further complicate this, with nominations often circulating within gender-specific circles (Drentea, 1998). Placing women in prominent roles within these committees, especially as chairs, is essential for fostering gender diversity in nominations.

• To counteract the pervasive issue of implicit bias, professional societies should educate their leadership and awards committees about its existence and effects. Regular reviews of awards portfolios can ensure they reflect and honour emerging sub-disciplines that attract a diverse pool of candidates, including women, in fields like bioengineering and biochemistry (Lincoln, 2012). Criteria for awards should be carefully examined for biased language, and nominations should favour structured queries over open-ended recommendations to limit bias. Implementing an oversight committee can help uphold standards and ensure adherence to these practices (Lincoln, 2012).

• Before the review of nominees begins, committee members should be reminded of the potential for implicit bias, particularly the 'role incongruity' bias, which wrongly assumes a mismatch between women and the traditional scientist role, leading to women being honoured more often for service than for scholarship (Heilman and Haynes, 2005). The presence of women in the nominee pool has been shown to moderate such biases, especially for scholarly awards, underscoring the importance of a diverse nominee pool (Lincoln, 2012).

By adopting these measures, prize committees and professional societies can work towards rectifying the gender disparities in science awards and prizes. This approach not only addresses the immediate issues of representation and bias but also contributes to a more inclusive and equitable recognition of achievements in the scientific community.

Although institutions play a crucial role in driving change, the ultimate success of these efforts also hinges on actions taken at the individual level. Let's explore specific strategies that individuals can adopt to initiate and support meaningful transformation (Llorens et al., 2021).

Individual-Level Interventions:

• Encourage scientists, editors, and reviewers to become more conscious of gender bias, particularly in authorship, and to seek education on gender bias to inform their review practices (Llorens et al., 2021).

• Urge authors to critically assess their citation practices, aiming for a balanced representation of genders in citations, supported by algorithmic tools that predict the gender of authors to aid in diversifying reference lists (Dworkin et al., 2020a; Dworkin et al., 2020b; Zhou et al., 2020).

• Highlight the significance of envisioning oneself in faculty roles during career transition award applications, which can profoundly influence self-perception and mentor attitudes (Llorens et al., 2021).

By integrating these strategies, from increasing awareness at the individual level to enacting structural changes at the institutional level, we can create a more equitable and inclusive academic landscape. This comprehensive approach not only addresses the immediate impacts of gender bias but also lays the groundwork for sustainable progress towards gender equity in academia.

Conclusion:

Recent research has significantly enhanced our understanding of women's underrepresentation in STEM, marking considerable progress on this issue. However, it is clear that the journey ahead is long, and that there is a critical need for more comprehensive efforts to identify, test, and evaluate effective solutions. Future studies are poised to tackle some of the challenges highlighted in earlier sections. Crucially, transformative changes must occur across cultural and institutional spheres, but the impact of individual actions and voices is paramount. It is at this personal level where the potential to inspire and drive systemic change lies (Schmader, 2022), emphasizing the importance of each person's contribution to fostering a more inclusive and equitable STEM environment of the future.

Post Script:

Thank you for participating in this activity. We hope it has enriched your understanding of the Matilda Effect, implicit bias, and the gender gap in STEM, and introduced you to some potential solutions.

It's important to recognize that the insights shared in this activity barely scratch the surface of the vast amount of information available, nor do they encompass all the possible solutions. Every journey towards change can begin with a single action or individual. Let us all strive to be part of the much-needed solution.

This activity did not delve into disparities affecting non-binary individuals or the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and gender, largely due to the scarcity of research and data in these areas. However, preliminary studies suggest, that “Women from minority ethnic and racial groups may encounter especially significant obstacles to professional progress, compounded by intersecting biases. Effectively addressing the sociodemographic imbalances in academic medicine demands a comprehensive and deliberate strategy” (Chatterjee & Werner, 2021).

Let's remain committed to learning, advocating, and working towards a more inclusive and equitable environment in STEM and beyond.