Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The existence of gender disparities in academia is well documented. Many explanations have been proposed and productivity is one of the most used variables to explain a possible correlation between gender and differences in academic rank or leadership positions. The literature on the existence of a productivity gender gap is inconclusive which may due to the variety of study designs. This article presents the results of a longitudinal bibliometric study of health science researchers controlling for sub-disciplinary affiliation, education, year of enrollment and age. The productivity and impact of the researchers are analyzed during a 16-year period. We find no or little difference in productivity or impact among the group of health sciences researchers from the time of enrollment in the Ph.D. program and 10 years beyond, and women outperform men in some cases. There are negligible differences in productivity and impact prior to enrollment. The implications of the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astegiano, J., Sebastián-González, E., & Castanho, C. D. T. (2019). Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: A meta-analytical review. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. R., Barry, M., Chaudhry, H., & Hubbi, B. (2006). Women as radiologists: are there barriers to entry and advancement? Journal of the American College of Radiology,3(2), 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, K. G., Huebner, E. M., Banerji, A., Long, A. A., Gross, N., Kapoor, N., et al. (2019). Sex differences in academic rank in allergy/immunology. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,144(6), 1697–1702.e1691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2019.06.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, D. M. (2017). Beyond chilly climate: the salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society,31(1), 5–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Broderick, N. A., & Casadevall, A. (2019). Meta-Research: Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally. Elife,8, e36399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, S., Mulsant, B. H., Sockalingam, S., Stergiopoulos, V., Taylor, V. H., & Vigod, S. N. (2019). Gender differences in research productivity among academic psychiatrists in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie,64(6), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743718802798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2019). Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLoS ONE,14(6), e0218309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, A., & Visentin, F. (2015). Science and engineering Ph.D. students’ career outcomes, by gender. PloS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, N., Veras, L. V., & Gosain, A. (2018). Using bibliometrics to analyze the state of academic productivity in US pediatric surgery training programs. Journal of Pediatric Surgery,53(6), 1098–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.02.063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T. K., et al. (2012). The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE,7(12), 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, L. D., Ovseiko, P. V., Shepperd, S., Greenhalgh, T., Frith, P., Roberts, N. W., et al. (2016). Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. The Lancet,388(10062), 2948–2958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood, S., Garcia-Lacalle, J., & Royo, S. (2020). The shattered glass ceiling and a narrowing gender pay gap in NHS foundation trusts: Gender and salaries of chief executives. Public Money & Management,40(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T.F., Jacobsen, R.H., Nicolaisen, J. & Ousager, J. (2019). Pressure to publish: a bibliometric study of Ph.D. students (1993–2009). In Proceedings of CoLIS, the tenth international conference on conceptions of library and information science, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 16–19, 2019. Information Research, 24(4), paper colis1925. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1925.html.

  • Frandsen, T. F., Jacobsen, R. H., Wallin, J. A., Brixen, K., & Ousager, J. (2015). Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences Graduates. Journal of Informetrics,9(4), 1007–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garstka, M. E., Randolph, G. W., Haddad, A. B., Nathan, C. A. O., Ibraheem, K., Farag, M., & Killackey, M. T. (2019). Gender disparities are present in academic rank and leadership positions despite overall equivalence in research productivity indices among senior members of American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) Fellowship Faculty. Head & neck.

  • Gayet-Ageron, A., Poncet, A., & Perneger, T. (2019). Comparison of the contributions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: A cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal Open,9(2), e024436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geltzeiler, C. B., Kelley, K. A., Srikanth, P., Deveney, K. E., Diamond, S., Thomas, C. R., et al. (2017). Does sex influence publication productivity among colorectal surgeons participating in fellowship training programs? Diseases of the Colon and Rectum,60(5), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics,105(3), 2023–2034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1757-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevi, G. (2019). Bibliometric studies on gender disparities in science (pp. 563–580). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hangel, N., & Schmidt-Pfister, D. (2017). Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. Aslib Journal of Information Management,69(5), 529–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, K. L., Frangou, S., & Perlis, R. H. (2019). Gender trends in authorship in psychiatry journals from 2008 to 2018. Biological Psychiatry,86(8), 639–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, E. B., Jagsi, R., Wilson, L. D., Choi, M., Thomas, C. R., Jr., & Fuller, C. D. (2014). Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration and funding among US academic radiation oncology faculty. Academic Medicine: Journal of The Association of American Medical Colleges,89(5), 767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology,16(4), e2004956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Torrini, R. (2017). Gender effects in research evaluation. Research Policy,46(5), 911–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karri, J., Navarro, S. M., Duong, A., Tang, T., & Abd-Elsayed, A. (2020). Exploration of Gender-Specific Authorship Disparities in the Pain Medicine Literature. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine,45(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2019-100806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolesnikov, S., Fukumoto, E., & Bozeman, B. (2018). Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact? Scientometrics,116(3), 1995–2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, K. E., Prichard, I. J., Cations, M., Osenk, I., Govin, K., & Coveney, J. D. (2018). A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines. British Medical Journal Open,8(3), e020380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, S. Y., Dong, Y. P., Zhu, W. F., & Li, L. J. (2016). An emerging trend of equal authorship credit in major public health journals. SpringerPlus. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2771-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. P., Lall, M. D., Samuels-Kalow, M., Das, D., Linden, J. A., Perman, S., et al. (2019). Impact of a women-focused professional organization on academic retention and advancement: Perceptions from a qualitative study. Academic Emergency Medicine,26(3), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loan, F. A., & Hussain, M. (2017). Gender Variations in Research Productivity: Insights from Scholarly Research. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2017, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lörz, M., & Mühleck, K. (2019). Gender differences in higher education from a life course perspective: transitions and social inequality between enrollment and first post-doc position. Higher Education,77(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0273-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J., & Pezzoni, M. (2015). Does gender affect scientific productivity? Revue économique,66(1), 65–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J., Pezzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2019). Impact of family characteristics on the gender publication gap: evidence for physicists in France. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,44(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2019.1603884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE,6(9), e23477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S. J., & Rathmann, J. M. (2018). How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics,117(3), 1663–1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2019). Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, M., Gelb, D. J., Wilson, K., Pawloski, M., Burke, J. F., Shelgikar, A. V., et al. (2018). Sex differences in academic rank and publication rate at top-ranked US neurology programs. JAMA Neurol,75(8), 956–961. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nygaard, L. P., & Bahgat, K. (2018). What’s in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,32, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qamar, S. R., Khurshid, K., Jalal, S., McInnes, M. D. F., Probyn, L., Finlay, K., et al. (2020). Gender disparity among leaders of Canadian academic radiology departments. American Journal of Roentgenology,214(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, M., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2006). Profiles of academic activities and careers: does gender matter? An analysis based on French life scientist CV. Journal of Technology Transfer,31(3), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, G., & Van Phu, S. D. (2019). Gender and academic rank in the UK. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, L., & Barnett, A. G. (2019). The impact of caring for children on women’s research output: A retrospective cohort study. PloS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikh, M. H., Chaudhary, A. M. D., Khan, A. S., Tahir, M. A., Yahya, H. A., Naveed, S., et al. (2018). Influences for gender disparity in academic psychiatry in the United States. Cureus, 10(4), e2514. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, L., Candamo, F., He, P., Karhade, D. S., Pirooz, Y., Spinella, M. K., et al. (2019). Gender differences in academic productivity and advancement among dental school faculty. Journal of Women’s Health,28(10), 1350–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2015). The engagement gap: Exploring gender differences in University-Industry collaboration activities. Research Policy,44(6), 1176–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2018). Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries. Journal of Informetrics,12(4), 1031–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2019). Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven english-speaking NATIONS. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2019). No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research. Scientometrics,121(3), 1793–1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Arensbergen, P., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity, a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics,93, 857–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2016). Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics,106(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1775-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: sheep with five legs. Organization,19(4), 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Miegroet, H., Glass, C., Callister, R. R., & Sullivan, K. (2019). Unclogging the pipeline: Advancement to full professor in academic STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,38(2), 246–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderbroeck, P., & Wasserfallen, J. B. (2017). Managing gender diversity in healthcare: getting it right. Leadership in Health Services,30(1), 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W. Y. White, K. E., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). Demographic differences in the publication output of U.S. Doctorate recipients. In proceedings of 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019, edited by G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, H. F. Moed and G. Ruocco, 2430–39. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

  • Waaijer, C. J., Teelken, C., Wouters, P. F., & van der Weijden, I. C. (2018). Competition in science: links between publication pressure, grant pressure and the academic job market. Higher Education Policy,31(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, K. L., & Canché, M. G. (2018). Is there a gendered path to tenure? A multi-state approach to examine the academic trajectories of US doctoral recipients in the sciences. Research in Higher Education,59(7), 897–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildgaard, L., & Wildgaard, K. (2018). Continued publications by health science PhDs, 5 years post PhD-Defence. Research Evaluation,27(4), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, I. O., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Predicting early career research productivity: The case of management faculty. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,24(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witteman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., & Tannenbaum, C. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet,393(10171), 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H. Y., Rhee, G., Xuan, L., Silver, J. K., Jalal, S., & Khosa, F. (2019). Analysis of H-index in assessing gender differences in academic rank and leadership in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the United States and Canada. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation,98(6), 479–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Universitetsparken 1, 6000, Kolding, Denmark

    Tove Faber Frandsen

  2. VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen

  3. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Jakob Ousager

Authors
  1. Tove Faber Frandsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jakob Ousager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tove Faber Frandsen.

Appendix: Data tables for Figs. 1, 2, and 3

Appendix: Data tables for Figs. 1, 2, and 3

This appendix contains five tables containing the data points in the figures and the T-tests carried out to examine whether any gender differences were statistically significant.

Data points and T-tests for total number of publications

Year

Men

Women

T-test

P-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

− 5

0.011

0.057

0.005

0.032

0.809

0.420

− 4

0.032

0.135

0.000

0.000

2.042

0.043**

− 3

0.025

0.097

0.004

0.022

1.814

0.072*

− 2

0.044

0.120

0.034

0.124

0.506

0.613

− 1

0.062

0.170

0.038

0.118

1.357

0.177

0

0.100

0.216

0.078

0.219

0.604

0.547

1

0.168

0.280

0.083

0.179

2.275

0.024**

2

0.214

0.404

0.142

0.235

1.416

0.159

3

0.352

0.405

0.260

0.360

1.443

0.151

4

0.356

0.470

0.353

0.614

0.029

0.977

5

0.327

0.408

0.366

0.487

0.467

0.641

6

0.306

0.403

0.382

0.690

0.794

0.428

7

0.314

0.451

0.343

0.510

0.336

0.738

8

0.387

0.550

0.323

0.588

0.745

0.457

9

0.257

0.405

0.367

0.783

1.078

0.283

10

0.294

0.657

0.417

0.976

0.891

0.375

  1. T-tests were carried out as standard two-tailed tests for equal sample size and equal variance as the expected variances of the two samples a priori were the same. Asterisks (*) denote values that are statistically significant at a 5% significance level

Data points and T-tests for journal articles published

Year

Men

Women

T-test

P-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

− 5

0.011

0.057

0.000

0.000

1.687

0.094*

− 4

0.027

0.130

0.000

0.000

1.818

0.071*

− 3

0.015

0.085

0.000

0.000

1.519

0.131

− 2

0.034

0.103

0.018

0.077

1.062

0.290

− 1

0.034

0.138

0.021

0.086

0.959

0.339

0

0.038

0.130

0.039

0.129

0.041

0.968

1

0.070

0.132

0.028

0.085

2.449

0.016**

2

0.110

0.193

0.074

0.157

1.291

0.199

3

0.164

0.243

0.132

0.230

0.822

0.413

4

0.219

0.310

0.178

0.231

0.925

0.357

5

0.201

0.244

0.196

0.242

0.236

0.814

6

0.206

0.236

0.203

0.279

0.137

0.891

7

0.215

0.379

0.228

0.323

0.175

0.861

8

0.205

0.310

0.182

0.289

0.552

0.581

9

0.168

0.243

0.171

0.284

0.049

0.961

10

0.167

0.265

0.189

0.285

0.477

0.634

  1. T-tests were carried out as standard two-tailed tests for equal sample size and equal variance as the expected variances of the two samples a priori were the same. Asterisks (*) denote values that are statistically significant at a 5% significance level

Data points and T-tests for reviews published

Year

Men

Women

T-test

P-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

− 5

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

− 4

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

− 3

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

− 2

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

− 1

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

0

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

  

1

0.045

0.156

0.015

0.083

1.455

0.148

2

0.007

0.058

0.005

0.039

0.277

0.782

3

0.010

0.050

0.008

0.048

0.280

0.780

4

0.005

0.039

0.016

0.080

1.089

0.278

5

0.015

0.075

0.004

0.024

1.208

0.229

6

0.000

0.000

0.017

0.123

1.174

0.242

7

0.007

0.058

0.013

0.056

0.657

0.512

8

0.015

0.075

0.019

0.086

0.291

0.772

9

0.021

0.086

0.024

0.096

0.217

0.829

10

0.019

0.076

0.030

0.106

0.745

0.457

  1. T-tests were carried out as standard two-tailed tests for equal sample size and equal variance as the expected variances of the two samples a priori were the same. Asterisks (*) denote values that are statistically significant at a 5% significance level

Data points and T-tests for other publications published

Year

Men

Women

T-test

P-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

− 5

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.032

1.349

0.179

− 4

0.005

0.039

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.319

− 3

0.009

0.049

0.004

0.022

0.943

0.347

− 2

0.010

0.052

0.016

0.100

0.439

0.661

− 1

0.028

0.108

0.017

0.064

0.948

0.345

0

0.062

0.145

0.039

0.147

0.938

0.350

1

0.053

0.129

0.040

0.101

0.705

0.482

2

0.097

0.250

0.063

0.139

1.122

0.264

3

0.178

0.309

0.120

0.231

1.266

0.207

4

0.132

0.258

0.159

0.512

0.412

0.681

5

0.111

0.249

0.166

0.366

1.065

0.289

6

0.100

0.241

0.163

0.485

0.997

0.320

7

0.093

0.181

0.103

0.284

0.261

0.795

8

0.167

0.312

0.123

0.371

0.822

0.412

9

0.068

0.163

0.173

0.546

1.583

0.116

10

0.108

0.471

0.198

0.765

0.851

0.396

  1. T-tests were carried out as standard two-tailed tests for equal sample size and equal variance as the expected variances of the two samples a priori were the same. Asterisks (*) denote values that are statistically significant at a 5% significance level

Data points and T-tests for citations received

Year

Men

Women

T-test

P-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

− 5

0.052

0.311

0.000

0.000

1.434

0.154

− 4

0.188

1.125

0.000

0.000

1.439

0.152

− 3

0.130

0.654

0.002

0.019

1.686

0.094

− 2

0.298

1.439

0.063

0.342

1.367

0.174

− 1

0.272

1.437

0.287

1.077

0.231

0.817

0

0.363

1.226

0.662

2.470

0.933

0.352

1

0.794

2.148

1.016

7.853

0.230

0.818

2

1.122

3.390

1.164

3.230

0.080

0.936

3

2.397

4.374

2.319

5.286

0.097

0.923

4

4.504

12.137

3.035

4.290

0.981

0.328

5

3.245

4.946

3.714

5.715

0.517

0.606

6

3.314

5.299

3.308

5.797

0.021

0.983

7

2.450

4.134

4.667

8.745

1.968

0.051

8

3.153

7.393

3.242

5.800

0.082

0.935

9

2.004

3.506

2.916

6.545

1.058

0.292

10

1.335

2.711

3.555

7.126

2.463

0.015

  1. T-tests were carried out as standard two-tailed tests for equal sample size and equal variance as the expected variances of the two samples a priori were the same. Asterisks (*) denote values that are statistically significant at a 5% significance level

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frandsen, T.F., Jacobsen, R.H. & Ousager, J. Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers. Scientometrics 124, 1511–1527 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03528-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03528-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation