Abstract
This study analyzes gender dynamics in the authorship of high-impact journalism research, based on 200 articles from Scopus-indexed journals published between 2013 and 2023. To conduct the analysis, gender classification algorithms were used, complemented by manual verification based on textual self-expression.
The results reveal a male predominance, with 65% of publications authored by men, who predominantly occupy the first and last positions of authorship.
Collaborations exclusively among men and mixed collaborations (men and women) are more common, while collaborations solely among women are less frequent. The topics covered primarily focus on innovations and economic and technological changes in journalism, as well as its relationship with political communication.
There is a notable scarcity of publications addressing gender inclusion and diversity. No significant differences were identified in topic selection based on the authors’ gender.
Keywords
Journalism; Scientific Production; Authorship Gender; Gender Gap; Scopus.
Introduction
The reduction of the gender gap is a priority in the field of research and science. For this reason, the European Union has launched, within the Horizon Europe Programme, the Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans (European Commission, 2021), which helps organizations meet the eligibility criterion of having a Gender Equality Plan for research.
This initiative highlights the importance of sex and gender analysis in promoting equality within the new European Research Area. In addition, the European Commission’s triennial reports She Figures (2021, 2018, 2015, 2012) underscore the need to monitor progress toward equity.
In parallel with these initiatives, various actions have been implemented to improve education and gender equality in communication and journalism, most notably the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (United Nations, 1995).
This conference emphasized the importance of women’s participation in decision-making environments and in the media. Other projects, such as the UNESCO–UNITWIN Network on Gender, Media and ICTs (García-Ramos et al., 2020), seek to reduce the gender gap in the field of journalism research and to train students and researchers in this area from a gender perspective.
Despite these advances in the study of gender inequality within communication research (Feeley & Yang, 2021; Rajkó et al., 2023; Freelon et al., 2023), it has been observed that there are still few academic studies that analyze this gap specifically in the field of journalism. Therefore, this study aims to analyze gender dynamics in the authorship of the most influential publications in journalism between 2013 and 2023, using the Scopus academic database. In particular, it focuses on gender based collaboration dynamics among the authors of these publications, while also analyzing the thematic areas addressed in these academic articles.
The following objectives have been defined, along with their corresponding research questions:
O.1 To analyze the gender of authorship of the most cited scientific publications in the field of journalism indexed in Scopus. Research questions for this objective:
– What is the overall distribution of authorship by gender in the publications analyzed?– How does the position of co-authorship vary according to the gender of the authors?
– What gender-based collaboration patterns occur among authors?
O.2 To examine the topics addressed and their possible relationship with the gender of the authorship. Research questions for this objective:
– What are the most recurring topics in the analyzed articles based on the keywords?– Is there a relationship between the gender of the authorship and the choice of topics?
In the following section, the existing literature is reviewed with an emphasis on gender inequality in academic production, paying special attention to this gap in the field of communication and journalism. Next, the methodology and the tool used to identify the gender of the authorship of the publications are described. Then, the results are presented, followed by a discussion of the obtained data. Finally, the conclusions, limitations, and directions for future research are outlined.
(…)
To read or download
Citation
Ventura-Cisquella, A.; Vállez, M.; Codina, L. and Freixa, P. (2026). Authorship and Collaboration Guidelines in Journalism Research: A Gender Analysis of the Most Cited Publications. Doxa Comunicación, 43 https//doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.2870
Useful links
References
Ahmad, S. (2017). Family or future in the academy? Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 204-239. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631626
Albarracín, M. L. G., Castro, C. M., & Chaparro, P. E. (2020). Importancia, definición y conflictos de la autoría en publicaciones científicas. Revista Bioética, 28(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422020281361
Alcalde-González, V., & Belli, S. (2024). Gestión del conflicto trabajo-cuidados en el ámbito científico-académico: un estudio cualitativo sobre las experiencias de mujeres investigadoras en España. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, (188), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.188.3-20
Asamblea general de las Naciones Unidas. (2016). Día Internacional de la Mujer y la niña en la Ciencia (A/RES/70/212) del 17 de febrero de 2016. https://goo.su/ENTsZ
Azizi, H., Abdellatif, W., Nasrullah, M., Ali, S., Ding, J., & Khosa, F. (2021). Leadership gender disparity in the fifty highest ranking north american universities: Thematic analysis under a theoretical lens. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 98(1163), 705-709. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139615
Bailo, F., Meese, J., & Hurcombe, E. (2021). The Institutional impacts of algorithmic distribution: Facebook and the australian news media. Social Media + Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211024963
Bendels, M. H. K., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by nature index journals. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317
Bian, L., Leslie, S., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389-391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
Bosco, A., Verney, S., Bermúdez, S., & Tonarelli, A. (2023). Surviving in a male academia: gender gap, publication strategies and career stage in south european political science journals. European Political Science, 23(3), 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00443-8
Broderick, N. A., & Casadevall, A. (2019). Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally. eLife, 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.36399
Bustelo, M., & Salido, O. (2024). Gender biases in the evaluation of knowledge transfer: A meta-evaluative analysis of the Spanish “Knowledge transfer and innovation sexennium”. Evaluation and Program Planning, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102432
Castonguay, S. (2023). Gender differences in rewards for academic performance: the case of north american environmental sociology. Environmental Sociology, 10(1), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2283824
Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2020). Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2421-2447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03733-w
Chary, S., Amrein, K., Soeteman, D. I., Mehta, S., & Christopher, K. B. (2021). Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel female first author index. Annals of Intensive Care, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-021-00889-3
Cislak, A., Formanowicz, M., & Saguy, T. (2018). Bias against research on gender bias. Scientometrics, 115(1), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2667-0
Cook, R. J., & Cusack, S. (2010). Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives. University of Pennsylvania Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhmhd
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655-681. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0091
Dahlvig, J., Kulick, N. D., & Greenhalgh, A. (2024). Revisiting “Glass Ceilings and Sticky Floors”: A commentary on navigating gender in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(07). https://doi.org/10.53761/z5z3pk86
Demeter, M., & Toth, T. (2020). The world-systemic network of global elite sociology: the western male monoculture at faculties of the top one-hundred sociology departments of the world. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2469-2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03563-w
Deuze, M., & Witschge, T. (2017). Beyond journalism: Theorizing the transformation of journalism. Journalism, 19(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916688550
Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Algorithmic accountability. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411
Dinu, N. (2021). ¿Citan las mujeres investigadoras más a las otras mujeres que a los hombres? Telos Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, 23(3), 568-583. https://doi.org/10.36390/telos233.05
Esparcia, A. C., Moraga, Á. R., & Martínez, A. A. (2012). La investigación en comunicación. Análisis bibliométrico de las revistas de mayor impacto del ISI. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 67, 248-270. https://doi.org/10.4185/rlcs-067-955-248-270
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/876509.
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). She figures handbook 2021. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/003736
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2019). She figures 2018. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/936
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2016). She figures 2015. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/744106
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2013). She figures 2012: gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/38520
Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N., Tamyez, P. F. M., Aziz, N. A. A., & Wider, W. (2024). Women leadership in higher education: past, present and future trends. Asian Education and Development Studies, 13(2), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeds-11-2023-0168
Feeley, T. H., & Yang, Z. (2021). Is there a Matilda effect in communication journals? Communication Reports, 35(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2021.1974505
Frandsen, T. F., Jacobsen, R. H., & Ousager, J. (2020). Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1511-1527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03528-z
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450-2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170
Freelon, D., Pruden, M. L., Eddy, K. A., & Kuo, R. (2023). Inequities of race, place, and gender among the communication citation elite, 2000–2019. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad002
Foss, N. J., & Olsen, A. Ø. (2023). Understanding the role of gender and project characteristics in research funding evaluations. European Management Review, 21(2), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12589
Friedmann, E. (2018). Increasing women’s participation in the STEM industry. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(4), 442-460. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-12-2017-0086
Gallardo, M. (2020). Does maternity affect women’s careers? Perceptions of working mothers in academia. Educación XX1, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.26714
García-González J, Forcén P, Jimenez-Sanchez M (2019) Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0225763. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763
García-Ramos, F., Zurian, F., & Núñez-Gómez, P. (2020). Gender studies in communication degrees. Comunicar, 28(63), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.3916/c63-2020-02
Ghiasi, G., Mongeon, P., Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2018). Gender homophily in citations. STI 2018 Conference Proceedings, 1519-1525. https://goo.su/XtqvJv
Goyanes, M., Tóth, T., & Háló, G. (2024). Gender differences in google scholar representation and impact: an empirical analysis of political communication, journalism, health communication, and media psychology. Scientometrics, 129(3), 1719-1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04945-0
Hagemann, S. (2022). Why does gender inequality in academic publishing persist? Lessons and recommendations. European Union Politics, 23(4), 729 740. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221120773
James, A., Buelow, F., Gibson, L., & Brower, A. (2024). Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women. eLife, 13. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.97613.3
Johansson, J., Gao, G., Sölvell, I., & Wigren‐Kristoferson, C. (2024). Exploring caring collaborations in academia through feminist reflexive dialogues. Gender Work and Organization 31(5), 2241-2263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13115
Jones, K., & Floyd, A. (2023). Women academics experiences of maternity leave in the neoliberal university: Unmasking governmentality. Gender Work and Organization, 31(1), 92-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13059
Joshi, A. (2014). By Whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The Interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214528331
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication. Science Communication, 35(5), 603-625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830
Lindqvist, A., Sendén, M. G., & Renström, E. A. (2020). What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychology & Sexuality, 12(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844
Lombardo, E., Naldini, M., & Poggio, B. (2024). Gender inequalities in academia: Multiple approaches to closing the gap. Sociologia del Lavoro, 168, 9-27. https://doi.org/10.3280/sl2024-168001
Magliozzi, D., Saperstein, A., & Westbrook, L. (2016). Scaling up: Representing gender diversity in survey research. Socius, 2, 2378023116664352. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664352
Naciones Unidas. (1995). Declaración de Beijing. Informe de la Cuarta Conferencia Mundial sobre la Mujer. 1995. https://goo.su/CdeN8
Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275-4292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694
Nyul, B., Ksenofontov, I., Fleischmann, A., & Kahalon, R. (2024). Brilliance as gender deviance: Gender-role incongruity as another barrier to women’s success in academic fields. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 116, 104680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104680
Pecis, L., & Touboulic, A. (2024). Academic mothers and the practice of embodied care: navigating and resisting uncaring structures in the neoliberal academy. Equality Diversity and Inclusion an International Journal, 43(5), 784-803. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-07-2022-0194
Potthoff, M., & Zimmermann, F. (2017). Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1047-1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2392-0
Rajkó, A., Herendy, C., Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2023). The Matilda Effect in Communication Research: The Effects of Gender and Geography on Usage and Citations Across 11 Countries. Communication Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124389
Reuning, K., Whitesell, A., & Hannah, A. L. (2022). Facebook algorithm changes may have amplified local republican parties. Research & Politics, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221103809
Rodríguez-Baiget, M. J., Machado, A. M., Del Rosal, J. C. C., & Vergara-Romero, A. (2024). The scarce representation of women university professors in research groups. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 13(3), 1384. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.27291
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004
Santamaría, L., & Mihaljević, H. (2018). Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science, 4, e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156
Sebo, P. (2021). Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1185
Segovia-Saiz, C., Briones-Vozmediano, E., Pastells-Peiró, R., González-María, E., & Gea-Sánchez, M. (2019). Techo de cristal y desigualdades de género en la carrera profesional de las mujeres académicas e investigadoras en ciencias biomédicas. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34(4), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.10.008
Song, Y., Wang, X., & Li, G. (2023). Can social media combat gender inequalities in academia? Measuring the prevalence of the Matilda effect in communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad050
Waisbord, S. (2018). Truth is what happens to news. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1866-1878. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2018.1492881 61670X.2018.1492881
Westbrook, L., & Saperstein, A. (2015). New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender & Society, 29(4), 534-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215584758