Mind the Gap: Gender Differences in Citations among Mexican Scholars

Daniela Aguirre-Guerrero; M. Ehekatzin García-Guzmán; Aurora Ramírez-Álvarez; Diana Terrazas-Santamaría

doi:10.29105/ensayos45.2-2

Autores/as

Daniela Aguirre-Guerrero Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4945-7258
M. Ehekatzin García-Guzmán El Colegio de México https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9198-0468
Aurora Ramírez-Álvarez El Colegio de México https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8358-2920
Diana Terrazas-Santamaría El Colegio de México https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7236-882X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/ensayos45.2-2

Palabras clave:

brecha de citas por género, dotaciones, bibliometría, descomposición Oaxaca–Blinder, México, Sistema Nacional de Investigadores

Resumen

Objetivo: Cuantificar las brechas de impacto académico por género en el Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) de México. Metodología: Se construyó una base con datos de Scopus para 2,089 investigadores SNI activos en 2021 en las áreas de Economía, Ingeniería y Ciencias de la Salud, y se aplicó una descomposición Oaxaca–Blinder al logaritmo de citas. La variable de resultado y las covariables con cola derecha se winsorizaron al percentil 99 dentro de cada disciplina para limitar la influencia de valores extremos, y las variables se transformaron como log(x+1) para conservar las observaciones con valor cero. El estudio utilizó un diseño observacional y transversal, y la muestra se restringió a investigadores SNI identificables en Scopus; en el apéndice se presenta una especificación con corrección por selección tipo Heckman. Resultados: Las mujeres recibieron aproximadamente 23% (Economía) y 21% (Ciencias de la Salud) menos citas en promedio; en ambos casos, más del 100% de la brecha se explicó por diferencias en las dotaciones, principalmente por un menor número de publicaciones y trayectorias académicas más cortas. En Ingeniería, la brecha no fue estadísticamente significativa; las mujeres presentaron dotaciones más bajas, pero mayores retornos a las características observables. Implicaciones: Los resultados sugieren que reducir la brecha de citas requiere fortalecer las oportunidades de investigación y la permanencia en la carrera académica más que intervenir sobre la dinámica de citación. Originalidad: El estudio constituye la primera descomposición Oaxaca–Blinder por disciplina de la brecha de citas entre investigadores del SNI y distingue entre las brechas en las citas y las asociadas con las trayectorias académicas.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

[1] Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575

[2] Bellemare, M. F., & Wichman, C. J. (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12325

[3] Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, 8(4), 436-455. https://doi.org/10.2307/144855

[4] Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h-index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20609

[5] Calvino, F., & Criscuolo, C. (2019). Business dynamics and digitalisation (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 62). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e0b011a-en

[6] CONACYT. (2020, 7 de agosto). Reglamento del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (Acuerdo 03-07/2020 de la Junta de Gobierno del CONACYT, 3.ª sesión ordinaria 2020). Diario Oficial de la Federación. https://sidof.segob.gob.mx/notas/docFuente/5600871

[7] Criscuolo, C., Martin, R., Overman, H. G. y Van Reenen, J. (2019). Some causal effects of an industrial policy. American Economic Review, 109(1), 48-85. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160034

[8] DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127

[9] Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.12

[10] Dorantes-Gilardi, R., Ramírez-Álvarez, A. A., & Terrazas-Santamaría, D. (2022). The role of highly intercited papers on scientific impact: The Mexican case. Applied Network Science, 7(1), Artículo 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-022-00497-5

[11] Dorantes-Gilardi, R., Ramírez-Álvarez, A. A., & Terrazas-Santamaría, D. (2023). Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in Economics. Scientometrics, 128(4), 2317-2336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04656-y

[12] Ellison, G. (2013). How does the market use citation data? The Hirsch index in Economics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.3.63

[13] Galaz Fontes, J. F., Martínez Stack, J., & Gil Antón, M. (2020). The emergence of the new Mexican academic meritocracy. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 1(2), 138–151. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hegp/article/827043

[14] Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLOS ONE, 10(12), Artículo e0145931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145931

[15] Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2004). Women in Economics: Moving up or falling off the academic career ladder? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330042162386

[16] Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005

[17] Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352

[18] Hengel, E. (2022). Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. The Economic Journal, 132(648), 2951–2991. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac032

[19] Hensvik, L., & Nilsson, P. (2025). Equality for granted: What happens when discrimination in academia becomes salient? (CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP20210). Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/publications/dp20210

[20] Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507656102

[21] Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117

[22] Jann, B. (2008). The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. The Stata Journal, 8(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0800800401

[23] King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903

[24] Krauss, A., Danús, L., & Sales-Pardo, M. (2023). Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: Evidence across eight scientific fields. Scientific Reports, 13, 18794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46050-x

[25] Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Tsou, A., & Gingras, Y. (2015). Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266

[26] Leone, A. J., Minutti-Meza, M., & Wasley, C. E. (2019). Influential observations and inference in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 94(6), 337–364. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52397

[27] Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F., & Livan, G. (2019). Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature Communications, 10(1), artículo 5170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4

[28] MaCurdy, T. E., & Pencavel, J. H. (1986). Testing between competing models of wage and employment determination in unionized markets. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3, Part 2), S3–S39. https://doi.org/10.1086/261398

[29] Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

[30] National Science Board. (2023). Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons (NSB-2023-33). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333

[31] Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male–female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14(3), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525981

[32] Oaxaca, R. L., & Ransom, M. R. (1994). On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials. Journal of Econometrics, 61(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)90074-8

[33] Rivera León, L., Mairesse, J., & Cowan, R. (2017). Gender gaps and scientific productivity in middle-income countries: Evidence from Mexico (IDB Working Paper Series No. IDB-WP-800). Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0011791

[34] Rivera-Romano, L. S., Fresno, C., Hernández-Lemus, E., Martínez-García, M., & Vallejo, M. (2020). Gender imbalance in executive management positions at the Mexican National Institutes of Health. Human Resources for Health, 18(1), Artículo 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-0463-4

[35] Sandoval-Romero, V., & Larivière, V. (2020). The national system of researchers in Mexico: Implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences. Scientometrics, 122(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03285-8

[36] Savage, W. E., & Olejniczak, A. J. (2022). More journal articles and fewer books: Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010s. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263410

[37] Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0

[38] Spoon, K., LaBerge, N., Wapman, K. H., Zhang, S., Morgan, A. C., Galesic, M., Fosdick, B. K., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. (2023). Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty. Science Advances, 9(42), Artículo eadi2205. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205

[39] Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2022). Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00188

[40] Van der Wal, J. E. M., Thorogood, R., & Horrocks, N. P. C. (2021). Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1958), Artículo 20210219. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0219