Gender Disparities in Contributions, Leadership, and Collaboration: An Exploratory Study on Software Systems Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender diversity enhances research by bringing diverse perspectives and innovative approaches. It ensures equitable solutions that address the needs of diverse populations. However, gender disparity persists in research where women remain underrepresented, which might limit diversity and innovation. Many even leave scientific careers as their contributions often go unnoticed and undervalued. Therefore, understanding gender-based contributions and collaboration dynamics is crucial to addressing this gap and creating a more inclusive research environment. In this study, we analyzed 2,000 articles published over the past decade in the Journal of Systems and Software (JSS). From these, we selected 384 articles that detailed authors’ contributions and contained both female and male authors to investigate gender-based contributions. Our contributions are fourfold. First, we analyzed women’s engagement in software systems research. Our analysis showed that only 32.74% of the total authors are women and female-led or supervised studies were fewer than those of men. Second, we investigated female authors’ contributions across 14 major roles. Interestingly, we found that women contributed comparably to men in most roles, with more contributions in conceptualization, writing, and reviewing articles. Third, we explored the areas of software systems research and found that female authors are more actively involved in human-centric research domains. Finally, we analyzed gender-based collaboration dynamics. Our findings revealed that female supervisors tended to collaborate locally more often than national-level collaborations. Our study highlights that females’ contributions to software systems research are comparable to those of men. Therefore, the barriers need to be addressed to enhance female participation and ensure equity and inclusivity in research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".