Balancing the Byline: Exploring Gender and Authorship Patterns in Canadian Science Publishing Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is internationally recognized for its leadership in science and its commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. Despite this leadership, limited research has examined gender disparities in scientific publishing within the Canadian context. This study analyzes over 67,000 articles published in 24 Canadian Science Publishing (CSP) journals between 2010 and 2021 to better understand patterns of gender representation. Findings show that women accounted for less than one-third of published authors across CSP journals. Representation varied by discipline, with higher proportions of women in biomedical sciences and lower proportions of women in engineering - trends that mirror broader national and global patterns. Notably, the proportion of women submitting manuscripts closely matched those published, suggesting that broader workforce disparities may play a larger role than publication bias. Women were less likely to be solo authors or to hold prominent authorship positions, such as first or last author - roles typically associated with research leadership and career advancement. These findings point to the need for a two-fold response: continued efforts to address systemic barriers to women's participation in science, and a review of publishing practices to ensure equitable access, recognition, and inclusion for all researchers.
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 | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".