By Kim Elsesser, Senior Contributor

In a groundbreaking new study, researchers have uncovered a troubling trend: scientific papers authored by women are cited far less frequently in patent inventions compared to those written by their male counterparts. This disparity underscores a critical obstacle that female scientists face in their professional journeys, as patent citations are essential for enhancing visibility and establishing perceptions of impact in the scientific community.

Published in the Administrative Science Quarterly, the study scrutinized patent citations linked to over 10 million scientific articles extracted from some of the most frequently referenced scientific journals. The researchers also focused on 185 pairs of "paper twins," where one team of scientists was led by a woman and the other by a man, both presenting the same ideas around the same time. This approach allowed for a direct comparison of how similar scientific contributions were perceived based on the gender of the lead author.

Moreover, the researchers conducted an experiment involving 400 participants holding doctoral degrees in various scientific fields. These participants were tasked with evaluating research abstracts authored by either a male or female scientist. The studys findings consistently indicated a bias against the contributions of female researchers.

In the comprehensive analysis of over 10 million academic papers, a notable 7% gender gap was identified, revealing that male scientists were more frequently cited in patents. This gap persisted even after accounting for variables typically known to influence citation rates. However, the situation became even more pronounced when comparing the so-called paper twins; the gender gap in citations skyrocketed to an astounding 40%. This stark increase suggests that when two identical ideas are available, the tendency to cite the male-authored paper is significantly higher.

As the authors of the study noted, Strikingly, this effect size is much larger than in the large sample analysis, suggesting that the fact that the same idea is disclosed in several papers might magnify the role of gender inequality. Such findings highlight the systemic bias that exists even in scientific fields, where objectivity should ideally prevail.

To further understand the extent of bias influencing citation rates, the researchers executed a controlled experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to read the same research abstract, with the sole difference being the name of the lead author, which was either male (e.g., Robert or David Anderson) or female (e.g., Elizabeth or Sarah Anderson). The results were striking: participants perceived the discovery described in the abstract to be more significant when they believed the principal author was male. Additionally, the time participants spent reading the abstract was longer for male-named authors114 seconds compared to 98 seconds for female-named authors.

The researchers explained, Inventors are likely to pay less attention to papers that they deem less important and may also fail to appreciate the importance of an idea if they do not pay close attention to it. These findings carry profound implications, not only for women in science but across the entire workforce. The under-citation of womens work in patents poses a substantial barrier to career progression, particularly in a landscape where patent citations are viewed as indicators of real-world relevance and innovation.

As highlighted by tools like Lens.org, which bridge academic research with global patents, the correlation between citations and career advancement cannot be overstated. Lens.org emphasizes that, Investors and funding agencies can find whether the science they fund enables outcomes for society through new inventions and products. This connection illustrates how a lack of citations can lead to missed opportunities for funding and recognition among female scientists.

Beyond the realm of science, the study also sheds light on broader issues of gender bias. It underscores the reality that womens contributions are frequently overlooked, even when they are equivalent to those of their male colleagues. Previous research has documented similar patterns of gender bias in various fields, from music careers to entrepreneurship. This study reinforces the notion that such bias in scientific innovation is a pervasive issue.

The authors of the study propose that inventors should be motivated to prioritize the best ideas, regardless of their origin. They argue that the process of developing new technologies necessitates considerable time, investment, and risk, and biases should not overshadow practical considerations. Unfortunately, their findings indicate that this is not the case. When the name at the top of the paper changed, so too did the attention it received and the value attributed to it.

The overarching takeaway is clear: even when women produce ideas of the same high caliber, they often do not receive equal recognition. This reality is not just a scientific issue; it is a pervasive challenge that women across all sectors are likely to resonate with deeply.