arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.05427

Women Enter Too, but Men Persist:The Temporal Structure of Gender Inequality in the Global Citation Elite

Marek Kwiek
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this research, I analyze the gender dynamics of the global citation elite using annual top 2% Stanford/Elsevier lists for 2019-2024. My database includes 1.22 million person-year observations (N=1,221,363), which corresponds to 465,707 unique scientists and scholars from more than 150 countries. I move away from static representations of women in the citation elite toward analyses of entry, exit, and permanent membership in the durable core of this elite. The share of women in the annual citation elite increased from 18.39% in 2019 to 20.98% in 2024. However, women are more strongly represented among first-observed entrants than among continuing members, and their share decreases with the persistence of their presence among the citation elite expressed in years: from 22.19% among single-year members to 17.84% among scientists and scholars present in all six annual lists. Women are generally located closer to the lower boundary of the elite in terms of the citation index deciles - and men are closer to top deciles. My logistic regression models estimate a lower probability of women s membership in the durable core of the citation elite (odds ratio estimate OR=0.69). Women are also more weakly represented in the all-career elite than in the annual elite (15.87% vs. 20.98%). I draw conclusions about gender dynamics within the global citation elite and gender inequalities in science more generally.

Explore related subjects

cs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marek Kwiek. 2026-07-01. Women Enter Too, but Men Persist:The Temporal Structure of Gender Inequality in the Global Citation Elite. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Reading the Data Back: Enriching Variable-Level Metadata for Model-Data Consistency Checks

Purpose: Research data repositories often lack variable-level metadata. Model-choice screening, checking whether a reported model suits the values of its outcome variable, also requires summaries of those values and links to the analyses that use them. We ask how repositories can represent and acquire them as metadata with evidence and review histories. Methods: We propose a metadata application profile compatible with the Data Documentation Initiative Cross-Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) model, linking versioned variables and empirical profiles to reported analyses, estimators, and analysis roles. Extraction provenance and review decisions are recorded separately. We evaluate streaming data profiling, deterministic extraction from Stata and R code, and language-model extraction of analysis records from papers. Results: A worked export of one replication package illustrates the profile: it passes shape and interchange checks and answers four queries, one of which returns the analyses that raise no alert. Screening 4,868 replication datasets from six political-science journals links outcomes to profiled columns in 1,440 deposits and flags 965, including 14 of the 21 deposits with a hand-verified linear model on a count, proportion, binary, or ordinal outcome. AI-assisted adjudication yields 55% precision on a near-balanced sample of 119 count and proportion candidates; screening rules were developed on the same corpus. Conclusion: The profile makes analysis-variable relationships queryable while preserving evidence and review history; screening yields review candidates with context. Code, metadata, and measurements are released.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL↗