Gender gaps in research: a systematic review

Gender gaps in research: a systematic review | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302" }, "headline": "Gender gaps in research: a systematic review", "datePublished": "2023-10-11T12:00:45", "dateModified": "2024-02-19T18:03:44", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Gissel Carolina Escobar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Oriana Rivera-Lozada" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Despite significant advancements in closing the global gender gap, there is still much progress to be made, particularly in the field of science and scientific research. Numerous studies have addressed this issue and identified a variety of factors that contribute to gender asymmetries in research. Methods This study aimed to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research present in the most cited studies of the past ten years as a first step towards closing these differences. Through a systematic literature review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology. Results The results lead us to identify four dimensions to classify the determinants of the gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile with their respective quantitative or qualitative indicators. Conclusions As a potential basis for further modeling that offers greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as the identification of targeted strategies aimed at reducing gender gaps in research. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302", "name": "Gender gaps in research:a systematic review" } } ] } Home Browse Gender gaps in research:a systematic review ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar GC and Rivera-Lozada O. Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada 1 , Gissel Carolina Escobar 1 , Oriana Rivera-Lozada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6546-3570 2 Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada 1 , Gissel Carolina Escobar 1 , Oriana Rivera-Lozada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6546-3570 2 PUBLISHED 19 Feb 2024 Author details Author details 1 Departamento de Economía, Universidad del Cauca, Cauca, Colombia 2 Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Gissel Carolina Escobar Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Oriana Rivera-Lozada Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Despite significant advancements in closing the global gender gap, there is still much progress to be made, particularly in the field of science and scientific research. Numerous studies have addressed this issue and identified a variety of factors that contribute to gender asymmetries in research. Methods This study aimed to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research present in the most cited studies of the past ten years as a first step towards closing these differences. Through a systematic literature review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology. Results The results lead us to identify four dimensions to classify the determinants of the gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile with their respective quantitative or qualitative indicators. Conclusions As a potential basis for further modeling that offers greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as the identification of targeted strategies aimed at reducing gender gaps in research. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Gender gaps, discrimination, segregation, research Corresponding Author(s) Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada ( [email protected] ) Oriana Rivera-Lozada ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada, Oriana Rivera-Lozada Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Universidad del Cauca Cross ref 501100005682 assigned to researchers Rivera-Lozada. Call Young Researchers and Innovators of the Department of Cauca, BPIN code No. 2020000100043 to Escobar Pérez. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Rivera-Lozada IC et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar GC and Rivera-Lozada O. Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3 ) First published: 11 Oct 2023, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.1 ) Latest published: 19 Feb 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 We have read very carefully the reviewer's comments, which we have responded to and additionally we have incorporated a limitations paragraph in the scientific article to comply with the reviewer's comments. We have read very carefully the reviewer's comments, which we have responded to and additionally we have incorporated a limitations paragraph in the scientific article to comply with the reviewer's comments. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lorenzo Escot READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction As indicated by the Global Gender Gap Report 2022, it will take 132 years to close the global gender gap, statistics designed to measure gender equality and inequality such as income, political representation, wealth accumulation, tertiary education levels, stress levels ( World Economic Forum, 2022 ). In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, based on the current rate of progress, the region will close the gap in 67 years ( Mujeres 360, 2022 ). Despite notable advancements in the region, some countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico) appear to have stagnated, while others (Peru, Guyana, and Chile) are improving their gender parity outcomes. At the other end of the spectrum, countries such as Colombia, Honduras, Barbados, and Belize have widened the gender gap. These results contrast with the Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to reduce gender inequalities by 2030 ( United Nations, 2015 ) and hinder the increase in scientific productivity by 15% to 20% ( International Labor Organization, 2017 ; Science Metrix Inc., 2018 ), highlighting the impact that achievements in reducing inequality have on the global economy and closing social gaps. In recent years, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate differences in scientific productivity ( Abramo et al ., 2013 ; López-Bassols et al ., 2018 ; Pinho-Gomes et al ., 2020 ) in various areas such as psychology ( Mayer & Rathmann, 2018 ), elite researchers ( Sá et al ., 2020 ), science and technology ( Pons et al ., 2013 ). Others have focused on identifying achievements and challenges ( Osorio, 2005 ), obstacles and barriers ( García-Jiménez & Herrero, 2022 ; Ramírez López & Bermúdez Urbina, 2015 ; Valenzuela et al ., 2022 ), to mention a few. The diversity of research interests exploring aspects of the problem related to the determinants and/or explanatory factors of gender gaps in scientific research leads us to consider it relevant to conduct a comprehensive literature review focused on gender differences in scientific research. The aim is to identify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research as a first step towards closing these differences. In order to conduct a relevant literature review, this research focused on a systematic review that incorporated the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology ( Ensslin et al ., 2013 ) to identify potential factors or determinants that make a difference in research for female researchers in the most relevant studies. This research proposes classifying the determinants into four dimensions: i) Academic Offerings, ii) Research Policies, iii) Scientific Production, and iv) Researcher Profile. The proposed classification allows the recognition of each factor and the definition of indicators, whether quantitative or qualitative, that reflect the situation in the respective field. These indicators serve as a basis for subsequent modelling, offering greater analytical and correlational depth, as well as identifying strategies to address and reduce gender gaps in research. Methods This qualitative research, based on a documentary design, relies on a systematic review and bibliometric analysis, which enables the study of quantitative aspects of production, dissemination, and use of recorded information ( Araújo & Arencibia, 2002 ; Morales-Morejón & Cruz Paz, 1995 ). The Proknow-C methodology ( Ensslin et al ., 2010 ) is employed, consisting of three stages: Development of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP), bibliometric analysis and systemic analysis. The research proposes to classify the information into 4 factors: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile ( Rivera-Lozada et al. , 2022 ). I) Development of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP). The Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) refers to the result of the sampling conducted on the relevant scientific literature concerning the gender gap in research. For defining the databases, we established the axes and keywords for the search, as shown in Table 1 . Table 1. Definition of Axes and Keywords. Axes Keywords Scientific research Research, scientific production, scientific recognition, scientific publications Research barriers Obstacles or barriers or challenges, scientific research Gender gaps Gender gap, gender inequality, historical inequality, women The databases were selected to enable filtering with Boolean equations in English and/or Spanish, differentiating the type of publication (book or article) and the temporal horizon (2012-2023). The verification of compliance with these requirements is presented in Table 2 . Table 2. Selection of databases. Databases Fields Boolean expressions Temporal horizon Type of publication Last revision date Scopus ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May Redalyc ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May La referencia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May Base-search.net ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May Web of science ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May Scielo ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May DOAJ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May Ebsco ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2nd week of May All documents that provided relevant information on the determinants of scientific research and the gender gaps in it were selected ( Table 2a ). The selected documentation was tabulated and classified according to objectives, methodology, variables, population, year of publication, results and conclusions. This classification served as a reference to identify the most pertinent, novel, curious or relevant documents that required special attention. Table 2a. Bank articles according to the database. DATA BASE Key words Redalyc La Referencia Base-search.net Scielo Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) "female researchers "+"barriers "+"gender" 114 29 0 0 6 0 159 1 "research "+"scientific production "+"obstacles" + "women" 56 56 4 0 984 10 3 1 "scientific production" + "inequality" 163 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 "scientific production" + "gender inequality" + "challenges" 6 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 "scientific publications" + "women" 199 199 2 1 1 0 14 14 "profile" +"women researchers" 12 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 "determinants" +"women researchers" 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 "perception" +"women researchers" 11 0 10 3 1 1 0 0 "incentives" +"women researchers" 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 1 "scientific research" + "women" 1060 0 4163 0 14 14 67 67 "scientific research" + "women in research" 7 7 8 8 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1635 292 4202 13 1015 26 253 84 DATA BASE Key words DOAJ Scopus Spanish Scopus English Web of science Ebsco Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) Results Potential results for the study (GBA) "female researchers "+"barriers "+"gender" 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 4 "research "+"scientific production "+"obstacles" + "women" 0 0 3 3 50 50 16 16 0 0 "scientific publications" + "women" 98 98 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 "profile" +"women researchers" 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 3 "perception" +"women researchers" 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 3 "incentives" +"women researchers" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 "scientific research" + "women" 871 0 1 1 19 19 8 8 0 0 "scientific research" + "women in research" 6 6 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 TOTAL 995 104 4 4 72 72 31 31 282 10 Table 2b. Total potential results of each database. Database Potential results for the study (GBA) Total GBA Redalyc 292 636 La referencia 13 Base-search.net 26 Scielo 84 DOAJ 104 Scopus 76 Web of science 31 Ebsco 10 Once the mentioned filters were applied, the Gross Bank Articles (GBA) was defined, resulting in 636 articles. The GBA was subjected to an adherence test by calculating a sample with a 95% confidence level and a maximum error of 10% to verify that each article contains at least one of the established keywords ( Table 1 ). The formula used is the following: n = Z 2 p q N N E 2 + Z 2 p q Where: n is the sample size of the GBA; Z is the parameter for the confidence level (1.96 for a confidence level of 95%); E is the allowable error (10%); p and q (50% each); and N = 636, being n = 83 elements of GBA (13%). With these conditions, the sample size was determined to be 83 articles to be classified in descending order of citability, along with their main authors, as shown in Table 3 . Table 3. Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) and respective main authors. # Author Citation # Author Citation # Author Citation 1 ( Abramo et al ., 2013 ) 233 30 ( Montes & Gallego, 2017 ) 6 60 ( Ruiz, 2021 ) 0 2 ( Pinho-Gomes et al ., 2020 ) 204 31 ( Torres, 2017 ) 6 61 ( González, 2014 ) 0 3 ( Mayer & Rathmann, 2018 ) 100 32 ( García, 2014 ) 6 61 ( Gutiérrez et al ., 2020 ) 0 4 ( Montané & Carvalho, 2012 ) 54 33 ( Rojas-Solís et al ., 2021 ) 6 62 ( Barrios & Passerino, 2021 ) 0 5 ( Guil Bozal, 2016 ) 52 34 ( Caballero Wangüemert, 2016 ) 5 61 ( Pérez, 2019 ) 0 6 ( Moreno Cubillos et al ., 2012 ) 44 35 ( Sougou et al ., 2022 ) 5 62 ( Contreras et al ., 2022 ) 0 7 ( Stromquist, 2013 ) 43 36 ( Ayala, 2019 ) 5 63 ( Noguera, 2019 ) 0 8 ( Sá et al ., 2020 ) 37 37 ( Guzmán, 2019 ) 4 64 ( Figueroa et al ., 2015 ) 0 9 ( Ramos, 2014 ) 35 38 ( Vargas et al ., 2020 ) 4 65 ( González, 2015 ) 0 10 ( Nygaard & Bahgat, 2018 ) 34 39 ( Ferro, 2012 ) 3 66 ( Palumbo et al ., 2022 ) 0 11 ( Pons et al ., 2013 ) 31 40 ( Belloso & Sanz, 2017 ) 3 67 ( Serrano, 2018 ) 0 12 ( Cárdenas Tapia, 2015 ) 29 41 ( Al Shammary et al ., 2021 ) 2 68 ( Hernández & Treviño, 2016 ) 0 13 ( Centeno-Leguía et al ., 2020 ) 15 42 ( Cruz-Castro, 2021 ) 1 69 ( Oliveira et al ., 2021 ) 0 14 ( Calvo & Rodríguez, 2012 ) 15 43 ( Florez et al ., 2016 ) 1 70 ( Berggren et al ., 2022 ) 0 15 ( Rodal, 2017 ) 13 44 ( Bordons et al ., 2012 ) 1 71 ( Mandıracıoğlu et al ., 2018 ) 0 16 ( Fox et al ., 2017 ) 13 45 ( Burgos, 2013 ) 1 72 ( Actis, 2021 ) 0 17 ( Davis et al ., 2022 ) 13 46 ( Gomez, 2020 ) 1 73 ( Lima et al ., 2021 ) 0 18 ( Zacharia, 2020 ) 12 47 ( Lione, 2018 ) 1 74 ( Alves, 2013 ) 0 19 ( Ramírez López & Bermúdez Urbina, 2015 ) 11 48 ( Cervera & Rivera, 2020 ) 0 75 ( Franz, 2020 ) 0 20 ( Jesús et al ., 2014 ) 11 49 ( Muñoz et al ., 2021 ) 0 76 ( de Oliveira et al ., 2020 ) 0 21 ( Dapía et al ., 2019 ) 11 50 ( Valenzuela et al ., 2022 ) 0 77 ( Del Valle et al ., 2012 ) 0 22 ( Basurto Barcia & Ricaurte, 2016 ) 11 51 ( García-Jiménez & Herrero, 2022 ) 0 78 ( Quintero & Ibáñez, 2012 ) 0 23 ( Vargas et al ., 2016 ) 10 52 ( Castro, 2018 ) 0 79 ( García Macas & Ortiz Espinoza, 2014 ) 0 24 ( Gnecco, 2016 ) 10 54 ( Ochoa, 2017 ) 0 80 ( Susinos & Parrilla, 2013 ) 0 25 ( Washburn et al ., 2013 ) 8 55 ( Ortiz-Ortega & Sánchez, 2017 ) 0 81 ( López-Aguirre & Farías, 2022 ) 0 26 ( González & Álvarez, 2016 ) 7 56 ( Carrillo Espadas & Flores Galaz, 2023 ) 0 82 ( Peñaranda et al ., 2021 ) 0 27 ( Martín, 2012 ) 6 57 ( García et al ., 2019 ) 0 83 ( Cirer et al ., 2020 ) 0 28 ( Luna Morales & Luna Morales, 2018 ) 6 58 ( Restrepo-Arango, 2016 ) 0 29 ( Truffa, 2012 ) 6 59 ( Quintero, 2019 ) 0 After the review, it was confirmed that the 83 articles contain the defined keywords in the fields of keywords, title, and/or abstract, verifying adherence. The representation of the used databases in obtaining the RBP is shown in Figure 1 . It highlights that the Redalyc database contributes the highest number of articles to the RBP, accounting for 47% of the total. Base-search.net follows with 14%, while the remaining 39% of the RBP is derived from databases such as Web of Science , Scopus , Scielo , La referencia , DOAJ , Ebsco , Redalyc and Base-search.net . Figure 1. Representativeness test of the RBP. On the other hand, it is possible to evidence representativeness of RBP through citability of the articles. Table 4 shows the list of 21 articles of RBP which stand out due to a citability of 10 or higher. This number is determined to highlight the 25% of RBP. Table 4. Table of highlighted articles. Year Authors Title Citation 2013 Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, Gianluca Murgiac Gender differences in research collaboration 233 2020 AnaC. Pinho Gomes, Sanne Peters, et al . Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship 204 2018 Sabrina J. Mayer, Justus M. K. Rathmann How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions 100 2012 Montané, Alejandra; Pessoa de Carvalho, Maria Eulina Diálogo sobre género: justicia, equidad y políticas de igualdad en educación superior (Brasil y España) 54 2016 Ana Guil Bozal Género y construcción científica del conocimiento 52 2012 Carmen L. Moreno, Luz E. Sepúlveda, Luisa F. Restrepo Discriminación y violencia de género en la univesidad de Caldas 44 2013 Nelly P. Stromquist Education Policies for Gender Equity: Probing into State Responses 43 2020 Creso Sa´ ID, Summer CowleyID, Magdalena Martinez, et al . Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa 37 2014 Ana M. González Ramos ¿Camuflaje o transformación? Estrategia profesional de las mujeres en carreras tecnológicas altamente masculinizadas 35 2018 Lynn P. Nygaard a, b, Karim Bahgat What's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap 34 2013 Pons Peregort, Olga; Calvet Puig, M. Dolors; Tura Solvas, Marta; Muñoz Illescas, Cristina Análisis de la Igualdad de Oportunidades de Género en la Ciencia y la Tecnología: Las carreras profesionales de las mujeres científicas y tecnólogas 31 2015 Cárdenas Tapia, Magali La participación de las mujeres investigadoras en México 29 2020 Dercy Centeno-Leguía a, Luz Morales-Concha b, Crislee E. Lopez c, Christian R. Mejia d Mujeres científicas: características y factores asociados a la primera autoría y corresponsalía en revistas peruanas indizadas a Scielo, 2010-2015 16 2012 Adelina Calvo Salvador y Carlos Rodríguez-Hoyos Aportaciones de los estudios de las mujeres y del género a la organización escolar, estado de la cuestión en España. 15 2017 Asunción Bernárdez Rodal Los estudios universitarios feministas y con perspectiva de género en España (2010-2015) 15 2017 Fox, Mary Franka Send mail to Fox M.F.; Realff, Mary Lynnb et al . International research collaboration among women engineers: frequency and perceived barriers, by regions 13 2022 Pamela B. Davis, Emma A. Meagher, Claire Pomeroy, William L. Lowe Jr, et al . Pandemic-related barriers to the success of women in research: a framework for action 13 2020 Prof. Dr. Zacharias C. Zacharia, Dr. Tasos Hovardas, Dr. Nikoletta X Ms Maria Irakleous Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender equality 12 2015 Dulce Karol Ramírez López, Flor Marina Bermúdez Urbina Avances, retos y desafíos: aproximación al estado del conocimiento de los estudios de género en educación superior en México 11 2014 María Jesús Matilla Quiza Esperanza Mó Romero De la excepción a la normalidad: Mujeres científicas en la Historia 11 s.f María Jesús Matilla Quiza Esperanza Mó Romero De la excepción a la normalidad: Mujeres científicas en la Historia 11 2019 María Dapía Conde Ricardo Escudero Cid Manuel Vidal López ¿Tiene género la ciencia? Conocimientos y actitudes hacia la Ciencia en niñas y niños de Educación Primaria 11 2016 Johanna Basurto Barcia Carla Ricaurte-Quijano Mujeres en turismo: Equidad de género en la docencia e investigación en el área de Guayaquil, Ecuador 11 2016 Vargas, Domingo; Requena, Jaime; Caputo, Carlo Género en la ciencia venezolana: desvanecimiento de la brecha 10 2016 Gnecco-Lizcano, Angela María Mujeres indígenas: experiencias sobre género e inclusión en la educación superior 10 Data processing Regarding the documentation selection process, it took the documents that met all the keywords proposed in the Boolean equation. The review, filtering of this documentation and analysis was done using the Mendeley literature manager Desktop version 1.19.8 and then exported the metadata of the publications obtained from the search were downloaded from the databases in Microsoft Excel format. For the underlying data, see Rivera-Lozada et al . (2023a) . The phases of definition of the protocol, search and extraction of the initial data from the databases were carried out by all the authors of this publication. The search results are current as of the second week of May. The subsequent filtering of the successive phases was carried out by peer review among the authors. Figure 2 contains the diagram of the process flow carried out to obtain our RBP. In the first instance, duplicate articles and articles that despite carrying out the search determining the interval of years, did not comply with this, are eliminated. Subsequently, those that contain the keywords in the title or in the abstract but any of both shows they are not related to the subject of study are excluded, such as the article “Analysis of the world scientific production on forced sterilization of women with disabilities between 1997 and 2016” ( Concha & Ferrer, 2019 ), our Keyword: scientific production and women or the article “Women and aging in social research (1950-2018)” ( Torralbo & Guizardi, 2020 ), our keywords: women and research. Then we obtained reports sought for retrieval but we do not have access to 40 of these, like the “Chapter 4 Gender and Economics in Latin America: a Systematic Analysis of Scientific Production in Scopus” ( Maldonado & Quiñonez, 2021 ) and finally, the articles are organized from highest to lowest citation ability and the articles that are outside the sample of 83 articles that were determined with the aforementioned formula are excluded. Figure 2. Temporal distribution of RBP articles. Results Bibliometric analysis Figure 3 shows the number of articles from the RBP published in the period 2012-2022, as well as the number of highlighted articles from the RBP based on their citability, published within this time interval. It can be observed that the year 2014 marked a turning point in the decline of publications, reaching its peak in 2016, which also had the highest number of highlighted articles. However, this pattern does not repeat when considering the lowest number of published articles. For the RBP, the year with the lowest number of publications is 2014, while in terms of highlighted articles, the year with the fewest was 2021, where not a single article surpassed 10 citations. Figure 3. Specialized journals publishing topics related to the gender gap in research. Figure 3 highlights the articles from the RBP according to the journals where they were published. The list includes 32 journals that published the respective articles from the RBP, ordered according to the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) index, which measures the prestige of the journals based on the citation count received by each publication. Notable journals such as BMJ Global Health, Journal of Technology Transfer, and Journal of English for Academic Purposes stand out with SJR indexes of 2.37, 1.70, and 1.32, respectively. There is a significant difference of 0.67 points between the first and second-ranked journals. However, the subsequent journals show a smaller decrease in their scores, as seen in the difference of 0.38 points between the second and third-ranked journals. The journal with the lowest index is Biblios, with 0.10 points. Based on these prominent journals, the coverage years of the SJR index for the top 10 journals were identified, as shown in Table 5 . Table 5. Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. Scientific journal Years of index coverage BMJ Global Health 2016-2022 Journal of Technology Transfer 1977-2022 Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2002-2022 Journal of Informetrics 2007-2022 Scientometrics 1978-2022 Educación XX1 2008-2022 Plos One 2006-2022 Sustainability 2009-2022 Frontiers in Education 2016-2022 Educar 2018-2022 Furthermore, the year of the first publication on the gender gap in research was determined for the highlighted journals in the RBP, as shown in Table 6 . Table 6. Determination of the year when publications on the gender gap in research began. Name of the scientific research First year of publication on the topic BMJ Global Health 2016 Journal of Technology Transfer 1993 Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2003 Journal of Informetrics 2007 Scientometrics 2002 Educación XX1 2013 Plos One 2012 Sustainability 2014 Frontiers in Education n.d Educar 2015 Along with the highlighted journals, information about the prominent authors in the RBP was also collected, selecting authors with the highest citability within the RBP, as shown in Figure 4 . The figure compares the total number of publications of each author with the publications they have made related to the gender gap in research. Among these authors, Ana Pinho Gomes stands out with the highest number of total publications. Giovanni Abramo, Sanne Peters, and Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo also have a percentage of their total publications related to the topic of study, with 1%, 3%, and 4% respectively. In contrast, authors such as Pessoa de Carvalho, Ana Guil Bozal, and Alejandra Montané have a smaller number of publications but a higher involvement in the subject at hand, with 14%, 31%, and 8% respectively. Figure 4. Prominent authors. It is possible to identify the geographical areas where the studies on the gender gap in research included in the RBP were conducted, as shown in Figure 5 . Figure 5. Spatial Focus. Geographical location of studies in the RBP. Based on the information recorded in Figure 5 , the evidence indicates that the country with the highest number of studies related to the gender gap in research was Mexico (29%), significantly surpassing other territories. Spanish publications ranked second (12%), followed by Colombian (8%), Argentinean (7%), Brazilian (7%), European (6%), Global Studies (6%), publications without a specific territory (5%), United States (4%), Chile (2%), and to a lesser extent, Venezuela, Turkey, Peru, Norway, Italy, Hungary, Honduras, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, and Africa (1% each). This provides the study with global perspectives. In addition to the spatial focus, the classification of the RBP was incorporated according to the methodological approach of the studies, indicating that 42% were qualitative and 58% were quantitative. The review made it possible to classify the potential determinants of scientific research: geographical location, position, dedication time, type of call, teaching classification or hierarchy, age, dependency load, inclusive financing funds, sexist bias, gender stereotypes, discrimination, institutional determinants, biases of evaluation committees, income, glass ceiling, scientific recognition or status, salary, motivations, sticky floor, labor contract, marital status, professional segregation, visibility of scientific production, among others. The systemic analysis of the RBP allowed us to categorize the barriers contributing to the gender gap in research into four dimensions with their respective indicators: i) Academic Offerings: number of higher education institutions total number of careers, female and male enrolment, science careers, female and male enrolment in sciences (natural and social) ii) Research Policies: agency, call for proposals, inclusive funding, evaluation committee, institutional policy, discrimination, recognition or incentive, types of hiring, iii) Scientific Production: research category, publications number, patents, collaboration, segregation, citability, and iv) Researcher Profile: motivations, sticky floor, income, position, geographic location, education level, age, gender, marital status, dependency load, scale, acknowledgment. i) Academic offerings: Ten percent of the RBP focused on explaining or analyzing gender gaps in research based on considerations that incorporate variables such as the number of educational institutions, professional careers offered, total enrolment, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers, and enrolment of women in natural sciences or STEM. In this regard, the results presented by López-Bassols et al . (2018) indicate that beyond acknowledging the existence of gender gaps in research, it is necessary to identify the areas or fields of knowledge where these gaps are most significant in order to correlate them with women’s participation and presence in higher education across various disciplines. Research conducted for Latin America and the Caribbean identifies family pressures, stereotypes, expectations, lack of mentors and role models, as well as vertical segregation and the “leaky pipeline” phenomenon as causal factors contributing to the existing differentials in women’s participation in research. The authors propose considering three dimensions: actors within the national science and innovation system (higher education institutions, government, companies, NGOs), activities related to science and technology (teaching, research, publications, patents, funding, and innovative entrepreneurship), and obstacles or motivations (opportunities, attitudes, financial support, other incentives, role models, discrimination, and social biases). Based on the aforementioned, they establish a set of 16 indicators classified under higher education, careers in science and technology, scientific research, and innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the research conducted by García and Ortíz (2014) explores the individual and institutional determinants affecting gender gaps in scientific production in Ecuadorian universities. Using a linear regression model, they propose individual determinants that include academic degree, number of scholarship recipients, hours of dedication, age, and gender, as well as institutional determinants that incorporate the number of R&D projects, laboratories, executed budget for R&D, number of collaborators, among others. The research results indicate that institutional determinants have a significant and positive impact, while the number of PhDs still does not have a significant effect on scientific production. In particular, they find that women are less productive than men and that the age range with the highest productivity is between 30 and 39 years. Additionally, they found that the number of collaborators has a negative effect. The UNESCO study on STEM education (2019) identifies four factors affecting gender gaps in research based on women’s participation in STEM education: individual factors (biological and psychological), family factors (parents’ beliefs, parents’ level of education, household socioeconomic status, and other characteristics), school factors (teaching staff, pedagogical strategies, teachers’ perceptions, interactions with students, textbooks, educational materials, curriculum, STEM equipment and resources, evaluation strategies and tools), and social factors (gender equality, social norms, policies and legislation, media and social communication). The document debunks the belief in biological differences in the brains of men and women as an explanatory factor for their participation in STEM disciplines and research in this field. In this regard, neurological plasticity, understood as the brain’s ability to create new connections, is the essence of the learning process. The self-selection bias is the reason why girls and women decline STEM education, and this selection is influenced by stereotypes and androcentric biases acquired during upbringing and socialization moments. Similarly, social norms and stereotypes disseminated by the media have a significant impact on the internalization of gender roles, occupations, skills, and capabilities by girls and boys ( UNESCO, 2019 ). Based on the literature review conducted, the indicators in the dimension of Academic Offerings are:. Based on our review of the literature, we identified the following indicators: number of higher education institutions, total number of offered careers, number of careers in science, total enrolment, total female enrolment, total male enrolment, enrolment of women and men in Natural Sciences, enrolment of male and female in Social Sciences, and enrolment of women and men in Health Sciences ( Carrillo & Florez, 2023 ; Del Valle et al ., 2012 ; Ortiz-Ortega & Sánchez, 2017 ). ii) Research policies: Twenty-nine percent of the RBP disseminated results regarding the impact of research policies on gender gaps in research. Mexico is the country where the highest number of studies in this field has been conducted, and thus, the equity of gender in research was evaluated in 2012, 2013, and 2015 ( Cárdenas Tapia, 2015 ). With a database that provided gender-specific information, knowledge area, SNI (National System of Researchers) classification, and public universities, it was possible to demonstrate that the participation of female researchers in Mexico is lower than that of men, and they also have a lower level in the SNI in all categories. In more detail, women are not the majority in any of the seven knowledge areas proposed by the SNI. Despite this, from highest to lowest, women are found in 1) biology and chemistry, 2) humanities and behavioural sciences, 3) social and economic sciences, 4) physics, mathematics, and earth sciences, and 5) engineering. The results confirm the scissor effect or pyramid effect regarding women’s participation in science, as the number of women decreases as their professional career progresses. This situation demands effective policies that encourage and ensure greater presence and participation of women in scientific research in Mexico. On the other hand, the research by González and Álvarez (2016) aimed to determine the factors that influence the achievement of efficient research formulation in Mexico through a descriptive-correlational study. With a sample of 42 researchers, they identified the following factors influencing the achievement of research formulation: development of analytical thinking, efficient database searching, management of research projects, efficient use of software, data analysis and modelling, innovation, and proper time management. Pons-Peregort et al. (2013) analyzed gender equality of opportunities in science and technology to understand the career paths of female scientists in Spain. Using a mixed methodology, they identified that equality of opportunities in internal promotion, salary disparities, and work-life balance are challenges that can be overcome with research policies. The low presence of women in scientific professional careers is based on the hegemony of masculine values, which calls for rethinking the achievement of the critical mass needed to bring about structural transformations in the research field, estimated to be 35% ( Langford et al ., 1995 ). The authors propose policies that support maternity, childcare services, tax deductions for women who stay at home to care for children because their absence perpetuates women’s inferior position in the labor market and keeps them away from the research field. In this sense, the indicators that contribute to the definition of the dimension of research policies are entities proposing the policy (State, Ministries, Universities, NGOs), research calls, inclusive financing, composition of the evaluation committee, institutional university policy, incentives and/or recognition, organizational culture (discriminatory biases), types of contracts. iii) Scientific production: Twenty-four percent of the RPB aims to study the gender gap in scientific production. Luna & Luna (2018) analyzed Mexico’s scientific production recorded in Web of Science from 1900 to 2000 in the fields of exact sciences and engineering to characterize the involvement of female researchers in these fields of study. As these areas have traditionally been associated with men, the research sought to highlight the breakthroughs and achievements of women, considering that they are not the majority in either field. The research used indicators in regard to gender, scientific production and impact, bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis. The results showed that scientific production increased from the 1980s and 1990s, mainly due to increases in postgraduate studies, the consolidation of research groups, and an increase in national and international scientific collaborations ( Luna & Collazo, 2002 ). Scientific production is concentrated in five institutions and is led by UNAM, which has had female representation for 29 years. Additionally, the co-authorship network of research groups in the physical, chemical, mathematical, and engineering studies emerges in various specialties. The increase in scientific productivity is associated with the growth of female enrolment in higher education in natural sciences (47%) and engineering (25%) ( UNESCO, 2019 ), as well as the creation of new educational institutions since the 1960s and the emergence of women in traditionally male-dominated disciplines. Continuing with Mexican research, Castro (2018) explores how a group of female researchers breaks paradigms and reshapes the line of women in scientific production. To achieve this, they incorporated qualitative-quantitative methods that included Participatory Action Research (PAR), Véster’s sensitive model, as well as validation indexes and indicators; monitoring and prospecting systems. This allowed them to conclude that women construct knowledge supported by a real and symbolic world. García (2014) explores the situation of women in the research field in Mexico and discovers that difficulties arise in reconciling academic degrees with motherhood, publishing requires fulfilling the double workload, supervising degree projects requires time and mobility availability, lack of transparency in selection processes, and being evaluated by men negatively impact women’s research. In Ecuador, Basurto and Ricaurte (2016) used a mixed study to examine the situation of women in the academic field of tourism. The results identified the low representation of women in teaching positions (53%) compared to the percentage of female students in tourism (75%), as well as male leadership in research from participating educational institutions, which are mostly organized by women. The explanatory factors found were difficulty reconciling research roles with motherhood, gender stereotypes, and the social perception of tourism as a feminine disciplinary field. López and Farías (2022) propose a quantitative analysis of the temporal trajectories of gender parity in scientific publications in Colombia. The country ranks fifth in scientific productivity in Latin America and allocates 0.5% of its GDP to R+D ( MINCIENCIAS, 2020 ). English language proficiency is a disadvantage for Colombian researchers and is closely related to socioeconomic status. Similarly, gender stereotypes in the workplace negatively affect female researchers, leading the authors to assert that it is not simply about increasing the number of women in science and their scientific production, but rather reevaluating how science is done and valued in Colombia, which requires an inclusive and equitable ecosystem. They highlight that the scientific areas with the highest number of female publications are medical sciences (37.76%), social sciences (35.51%), and natural sciences (29.09%). Regarding gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, as studied by Sá et al . (2020) , it was found that women in science in these countries are under-cited, underpaid, underpromoted, and receive less professional recognition compared to their male counterparts, which puts women at a disadvantage when considering the principle of cumulative advantage, indicating that greater recognition leads to more productivity. They identified factors such as differences in family responsibilities, different patterns in the use of time (women spend more time teaching, advising students, and participating in committees), unequal allocation of resources, gender bias in peer review, gender stratification in disciplines, as well as different patterns in academic collaboration and network building as explanatory factors for the low productivity of female researchers. In an Italian study conducted by Abramo et al . (2013) using a bibliometric approach, they sought to identify academics’ propensity for collaboration, leading them to conclude that women demonstrate a greater capacity to collaborate in all the analysed forms (intramural, extramural, national, and international), except in international collaboration, where the gap with male counterparts persists. Among the explanatory factors for productivity gaps in research compared to men, they found that the low percentage of female academics, discrimination affecting job opportunities, biases, difficulty accessing funding, and limitations due to family responsibilities negatively affect female researchers. Pinho-Gomes et al . (2020) investigate the authorship of women in COVID-19 research by asking “where are the women?” The study shows that women are underrepresented in research, particularly in first and last author positions. These gender biases point to broader inequalities that include authorship in other scientific areas and senior authorship. Based on the aforementioned, the indicators in the scientific production factor are the following researcher category, number of publications, number of patents, collaborative authorship, type of publication (scientific article, popular article, book chapter, book, collections), segregation (female collaborations), and citability. iv) Profile. Thirty-seven percent of the RBP presented research results addressing the characteristics, motivations, uniqueness, and distinctive traits of researchers. In this perspective, Prieto de Alizo (2008) provides a theoretical approach to the characteristics of researchers in the humanities field using a phenomenological, hermeneutic, and ethnographic approach with successive interviews until theoretical saturation of categories is reached. The study conducted in Venezuela defined researchers as individuals with an active interest in understanding, learning, deconstructing, and constructing their reality. Beyond defining the characteristics of the group of researchers, the research made it possible to address two other fundamental aspects: the researchers’ conception of conducting research and the context in which research is carried out. This includes aspects such as institutional identification, the academic space where they work, the research-teaching relationship, the appreciation of the profession, administrative strategies in terms of institutional and state policies, as well as quality criteria. In Spain, Dapía et al . (2019) explored whether science has a gender association among primary school students. Using a gender perspective analysis, they administered the PANA instrument (Project on Attitudes Toward Science in Children and Adolescents) by Pérez and Pro (2005) and the ROSE questionnaire ( Schreiner and Sjøberg, 2004 ) to 378 students. The investigation showed a weak association between gender and science, a more positive attitude towards science among boys, and no gender bias in the desire to become a scientist. This led to the conclusion that there is a need to improve knowledge about the contributions of science and that career aspirations to become scientists in primary education are not associated with gender. Research conducted in Mexico by Carrillo and Flores (2023) , aimed at describing the educational trajectory of women during their professional studies, surveyed 152 women scientists from the National System of Researchers (SNI) selected through non-probability sampling. The study aimed to identify obstacles, challenges, and experiences in the scientific field. Using descriptive quantitative methodology, they found that women face gender-related barriers such as invisibility, lack of recognition for scientific contributions, inequity, stereotypes associated with the care economy, dual burden of work, and difficulties in achieving work-life balance. In the same vein, they identified variables associated with gender such as the choice of professional career, gender division of labour, sociocultural conditions, social valuation, stereotypes, and gender roles. Regarding the academic trajectory, the variables that influence it are discipline, postgraduate studies, periodic publications, difficulties in entering and advancing in the SNI (lower hierarchy, prolonged stagnation, institutional conditions, as well as symbolic and social gender aspects). As a result, the main challenges faced by female researchers are related to bureaucracy, in terms of paperwork and procedures, the evaluation system based on quantity rather than quality, funding, lack of job security, competition in what they call the “wolf environment,” excessive workload due to lack of staff, and career advancement understood as continuous training and development processes. Therefore, the selected indicators for the profile dimension are motivations, existence of a sticky floor, income level, position, geographic location, educational level, career, age, gender, marital status, dependent care burden, rank or category, and recognition. It is important to mention that this study presented limitations in the number of articles included from databases such as Scopus and Wos, which can be explained by the selection of Boolean expressions used that privileged certain repositories for the search of information. However, this does not affect the value of the information found in this research. Conclusion Research focused on gender differences in scientific research has identified a diverse range of determinants or explanatory factors for these gaps. Through a systematic review using the Proknow-C Knowledge Development Process and Constructivism methodology, this research identified the most relevant studies and potential factors influencing scientific research for female researchers and academics. The research facilitated the identification of relevant indicators grouped into four dimensions. The first dimension analysed was academic offerings, considering variables such as the number of educational institutions, offered professional careers, total enrolment, STEM careers, and enrolment of women in natural sciences or STEM. Additional indicators included total female enrolment, female enrolment in natural sciences, female enrolment in social sciences, and female enrolment in health sciences. The second dimension examined was research policies. The research found that 29% of the Relevant Bibliographic Portfolio (RBP) presented results regarding the impact of research policies on gender gaps in research. Mexico stood out as the country with the highest number of studies in this field. Indicators considered in the analysed documents included policy-proposing organizations (government, ministries, universities, NGOs), research calls, inclusive funding, composition of evaluation committees, university institutional policies, incentives/recognition, organizational culture (discriminatory biases), and types of employment contracts. The third dimension focused on scientific production. The research found that 24% of the RBP aimed to study the gender gap in research production. The selected indicators were researcher category, number of publications, number of patents, collaborative authorship, publication types (scientific articles, popular articles, book chapters, books, collections), gender segregation in collaborations, and citability. The final dimension addressed the profile of researchers. Approximately 37% of the RBP included studies investigating characteristics, motivations, singularities, and distinctive traits of researchers. Qualitative and quantitative indicators were selected, including motivations, the existence of glass ceiling, income level, position, geographical location, educational level, field of study, age, gender, marital status, dependency burden, rank or category, and recognition. Systematization processes in the literature review are usually processes whose complexity becomes more evident in the discussion of the results. In particular, because in this case the largest number of documents was concentrated in a single country, Mexico, a situation that leads to conceptual and, above all, contextual biases. The proposed dimensions of analysis, along with the derived indicators from the conducted research, aim to contribute to the development of explanatory models for the determinants of gender differentials in research. Furthermore, this research aims to help the formulation of effective public policies that address and reduce these gender gaps. Data availability Underlying data Zenodo: Gender gaps in research: Literature review, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8206068 ( Rivera-Lozada et al ., 2023a ). This project contains the following underling data: • METHODOLOGY.xlsx Reporting guidelines Zenodo: PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for ‘Gender gaps in research: a systematic review’, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8267629 ( Rivera-Lozada et al ., 2023b ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0 International). References Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Murgia G: Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Informet. 2013; 7 (4): 811–822. Publisher Full Text Actis AM: Vista de Grandes mujeres científicas: Maud Leonora Menten. Hospital Italiano de B. Aires. 2021; 41 : 43–46. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Al Shammary SE, Zrieq R, Ibrahem UM, et al. : On the Celebration of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science: Assessment of the Factors Mediating Women’s Empowerment in Scientific Research in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (2385): 2385. Publisher Full Text Alves V: Production of scientific knowledge in nursing in the area of women’s health. Online Braz. J. Nurs. 2013; 12 : 770–772. Publisher Full Text Araújo J, Arencibia R: Informetría, bibliometría y cienciometría: aspectos teórico-prácticos. ACIMED. 2002; 10 (4): 5–6. Reference Source Ayala L: Proceso de transversalización de la perspectiva de género en la Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Avances y obstáculos. Universidades. 2019; 81 : 33–43. Reference Source Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib A, Timmins F, et al. : Developments in empowering and supporting women’s role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J. Adv. Nurs. 2023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Barrios R, Passerino L: Experiencias de investigación en Pandemia: condiciones de producción y desigualdades de género. De Prácticas y Discursos. 2021; 10 (16). Publisher Full Text Basurto Barcia JB, Ricaurte C: Mujeres en turismo: Equidad de género en la docencia e investigación en el área de Guayaquil, Ecuador. Estudios y perspectivas en turismo. 2016; 25 . Reference Source Belloso ML, Sanz AD: Aproximación a las resistencias de género en los procesos de cambio estructural en las Instituciones de Investigación europeas. REencuentro. Análisis de Problemas Universitarios. 2017; 28 : 311–332. Reference Source Berggren Å, Almlöv C, D’Urso A, et al. : “Screwed from the start”: How women perceive opportunities and barriers for building a successful research career. Front. Educ. 2022; 7 . Publisher Full Text Bordons M, Gómez Caridad I, Hillán L, et al. : Indicadores de género en las publicaciones científicas: “gate-keepers” y autores.2012. Reference Source Burgos M: Las mujeres: entre el sacrificio y la neqociación. Boletín de Antropología Universidad deAntioquia. 2013; 28 : 62–75. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Caballero Wangüemert M: Mujeres de ciencia: el caso del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura. 2016; 192 : a300. Publisher Full Text Calvo A, Rodríguez C: Aportación de los estudios de las mujeres y del género a la organización escolar. Estado de la cuestión en España. Educación XX1. 2012; 15 (139-613X): 43–60. Reference Source Cárdenas Tapia M: La Participación De Las Mujeres Investigadoras En México. Investigación Administrativa. 2015; 44 : 64–80. Reference Source Carrillo Espadas PI, Flores Galaz MM: Mujeres científicas en Yucatán: obstáculos, retos y experiencias durante sus trayectorias educativas. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos. 2023; 53 (1): 253–284. Publisher Full Text Castro M d F: Procesos socio-ambientales de tecnología e innovación: De las brujas alquimistas de ayer a las científicas ambientales de hoy. Nodo: Arquitectura. Ciudad. Medio Ambiente. 2018; 13 (25): 34–43. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Centeno-Leguía D, Morales-Concha L, Lopez CE, et al. : Mujeres científicas: características y factores asociados a la primera autoría y corresponsalía en revistas peruanas indizadas a SciELO, 2010-2015. Educación Médica. 2020; 21 (1): 17–23. Publisher Full Text Cervera C, Rivera M d C: Educación de mujeres: historias de vida en contextos de marginación social, 1930-1970 ca. Debates por la Historia. 2020; 8 : 41–109. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Cirer AI, Boucourt Rodríguez E, De K, et al. : Enfoque actual y futuro de la mujer en la gestión del posgrado y la investigación científica. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo. Magazine de las Ciencias: Revista de Investigación e Innovación. 2020; 5 (6): 68–78. Reference Source Concha A, Ferrer V: Análisis de la producción científica mundial sobre esterilización forzada de mujeres con discapacidad entre 1997 y 2016. Gac. Sanit. 2019; 33 : 381–388. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Contreras M, Pineda GM, Romero A, et al. : Estudio descriptivo del perfil de investigadoras hondureñas en Google Académico. Revista de Ciencias Forenses de Honduras. 2022; 8 (1): 17–25. Publisher Full Text Cruz-Castro L: Diferencias y sesgos de género en la financiación de la investigación: un enfoque dinámico. GAPP. 2021; 26 : 6–19. Publisher Full Text Dapía M, Escudero Cid R, Vidal López M: ¿Tiene género la ciencia? Conocimientos y actitudes hacia la Ciencia en niñas y niños de Educación Primaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación delas Ciencias. 2019; 16 . (1697-011X). Publisher Full Text Davis PB, Meagher EA, Pomeroy C, et al. : Pandemic-related barriers to the success of women in research: a framework for action. Nat. Med. 2022; 28 (3): 436–438. Publisher Full Text de Oliveira JR , Mello LC, Rigolin C: Female participation in information technology research in brazil: Research groups and scientific production of theses and dissertations. Cadernos Pagu. 2020; 58 : 1–51. Publisher Full Text Del Valle C, David C, Soledad D’elia N: Valoración a las investigadoras chilenas sobre los actuales índices editoriales. Ciencias de la Información. 2012; 43 (1): 45–50. Reference Source Ensslin L, et al. : ProKnow-C, Knowledge Development Process—Construtivist. Processo tecnico com patente de registro pendente junto ao INPI. Brazil: References - Scientific Research Publishing; 2010. (2014). Reference Source Reference Source Ensslin L, Ensslin SR, de Pinto H, et al. : Processo de investigação e análise bibliométrica: avaliação da qualidade dos serviços bancários. Revista de Administração Contemporânea. 2013; 17 (3): 325–349. Publisher Full Text Ferro A: Tendencia de I+D+I en Biomecánica aplicada al Deporte. Revista Internacional de ciencias del deporte. 2012; 8 . Publisher Full Text Figueroa E, Perez Soto F, Godinez Montoya L: Comportamiento de las investigadoras del SNI, 1984-2013.Mendieta-Ramírez A, editors. ¿Legitimidad o reconocimiento? Las investigadoras del SNI. Retos y propuestas. D.R. © Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla; 2015; (pp. 235–243). Reference Source Florez L, Cózatl Sánchez R, Flores I: La precarización laboral de las mujeres en la educación. Opción. 2016; 32 (13): 478–491. Reference Source Fox MF, Realff ML, Rueda DR, et al. : International research collaboration among women engineers: frequency and perceived barriers, by regions. J. Technol. Transfer. 2017; 42 (6): 1292–1306. Publisher Full Text Franz N: What are gender studies: characterization of scientific output self-named gender studies in a multidisciplinary and international database. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia eciência da informação. 2020; 25 : 01–30. Publisher Full Text García-Jiménez L, Herrero E: “Nunca lo lograrás, eres demasiado guapa”: Voces de mujeres investigadoras en comunicación. IC Revista Científica de Información y Comunicación. 2022; 19 (19): 385–410. Publisher Full Text García J, Hernández C, Navarro M: Una aproximación a las diferencias de género en el personal de una universidad pública mexicana. Rev. Invest. 2019; 43 . Reference Source García M: Reflexiones sobre los retos que enfrentan las mujeres en el ingreso, la permanencia y la promoción en el Sistema Nacional de Investigadores. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 2014; (35E): 18–25. Publisher Full Text García Macas GA, Ortiz Espinoza FM: Determinantes que influyen en la producción científica de las Universidades y Escuelas Politécnicas Ecuatorianas en el año 2014. Espol; 2014. Reference Source Gnecco AM: Mujeres indígenas: experiencias sobregénero e inclusión en la educaciónsuperior. Revista Eleuthera. 2016; 14 (2011–453). Publisher Full Text Gomez CE: “Las condiciones de mi sexo”: Mujeres científicas argentinas frente a la memoria masculinizada. Revista de Investigación del Departamento de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. 2020; 16 : 47–58. Reference Source González E: El lugar de la investigación desde el género. Reflexiones desde la filosofía. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 2014; 102–109. Publisher Full Text González M: El Retorno de las Brujas. Incorporación, Aportaciones y Críticas de las Mujeres a la Ciencia. Letras. Universidad Pedagógica experimental Libertador; 2015; Vol. 57 (92). Reference Source González V, Álvarez NT: Factores que fortalecen la investigación. Caso investigadoras de la FIME-UANL. Opción. 2016; 32 (13): 1118–1135. Reference Source Guil Bozal A: Género y construcción científica del conocimiento. Revista Historia de la de la educación latinoamericana. 2016; 18 (27): 263–288. Publisher Full Text Gutiérrez P, Cervantes E, Rojas G, et al. : Investigación educativa en Chihuahua con perspectiva de género. Qartuppi; 2020. Publisher Full Text Guzmán M d R: La construcción subjetiva de identidades en las académicas-investigadoras desde el espacio personal-familiar y su incidencia en la carrera laboral: caso UJED.2019. Reference Source Hernández E, Treviño R: Perspectiva de género en la investigación urbana. Vivat Academia. 2016; 134 : 47–56. Publisher Full Text Jesús M, Quiza M, Romero E: De la excepción a la normalidad: Mujeres científicas en la Historia. Encuentros multidiscip. 2014; 47 : 1–10. Reference Source Langford DA, Fellows RF, Hancock M, et al. : Human resources in the management of construction. Harlow. United Kingdom: Longman; 1995. Reference Source Lima M, Nicoliello L, Aquino da Rosa R: Criticism to the erasing of women in industrial education: the history of female insertion in the Federal Technical School of Espírito Santo (1950–1970). Revista Brasileira de Educação. 2021; 26 . Publisher Full Text Lione SV: Trabajo científico y doméstico y cuidados no remunerados. Estudio de caso sobre mujeres ivestigadoras de la Universidad nacional del Litoral (Santa fe, Argentina). Revista Binacional Brasil-Argentina: Diálogo entre as ciências. 2018; 7 (2): 132–166. Reference Source López-Aguirre C, Farías D: The mirage of scientific productivity and how women are left behind: the Colombian case. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society. 2022; 5 (1). Publisher Full Text López-Bassols V, Grazzi M, Guillard C, et al. : Las brechas de género en ciencia, tecnología e innovación en América Latina y el Caribe: resultados de una recolección piloto y propuesta metodológica para la medición. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. 2018. Publisher Full Text Luna-Morales ME, Collazo-Reyes F: El Síndrome Big Science y su influencia en el proceso de maduración de la física mexicana de partículas elementales. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 2002; 25 (4): 409–420. Publisher Full Text Luna Morales ME, Luna Morales E: Mujeres investigadoras en las primeras estructuras de organización en ciencias exactas e ingenierías en México de 1900-2000: Estudio Bibliométrico. Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información. 2018; 32 (77): 193–215. Publisher Full Text Maldonado C, Quiñonez P: Gender Inequality in Latin America: Chapter 4 Gender and Economics in Latin America: a Systematic Analysis of Scientific Production in Scopus. Brill; 2021. Publisher Full Text Mandıracıoğlu A, Hilal Batı A, Gövsa F, et al. : Health science students’ opinions toward scientific research and women in science. Arastirma. 2018; 14 (2): 22–30. Reference Source Martín GM: Mujeres científicas en la Unión Europea: ¿escasean todavía las mujeres en carreras científicas y en posiciones de liderazgo? Revista de Física Médica. 2012; 13 (1). Reference Source Mayer SJ, Rathmann JMK: How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics. 2018; 117 (3): 1663–1693. Publisher Full Text MINCIENCIAS: La ciencia en cifras.2020. Accessed 22 February 2020. Reference Source Montané A, Carvalho MEP d: Diálogo sobre género: justicia, equidad y políticas de igualdad en educación superior (Brasil y España). Revista Lusófona de Educação. 2012; 21 : 97–120. Reference Source Montes E, Gallego N: La segregación ocupacional del profesorado femenino en la universidad española. REencuentro. Análisis de Problemas Universitarios. 2017; 28 : 214–236. Reference Source Morales-Morejón M, Cruz Paz A: La Bibliotecología, la Cienciología y la Ciencia de la Información y sus disciplinas instrumentales: Su alcance conceptual. Ciencias de la Información. 1995; 2 : 70–88. Reference Source Moreno Cubillos C, Leonor C, Gallego S, et al. : Discriminación y violencia de género en la Universidad de Caldas. Revista Hacia la Promoción de la Salud. 2012; 17 : 59–76. Reference Source Mujeres 360: WEF: Informe Global de Brecha de Género 2022.2022. Reference Source Muñoz B, Maz A, Rodríguez C, et al. : La presencia de la mujer en las publicaciones de Educación en Colombia: un análisis en el Emerging Sources Citation Index. Biblios: Revista electrónica de bibliotecología, archivología y museología. 2021; 82 : 41–50. Publisher Full Text Naciones Unidas: Objetivos y metas de desarrollo sostenible.2015. Reference Source Noguera A: Mujer y Ciencia: dos revoluciones del siglo XXI. Ciencia, Técnica y Mainstreaming Social. 2019; 3 : 23–33. Publisher Full Text Nygaard LP, Bahgat K: What’s in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2018; 32 : 67–79. Publisher Full Text Ochoa LM: Agenda para la igualdad en las universidades europeas: consideraciones críticas y lecciones. REencuentro. Análisis de Problemas Universitarios. 2017; 28 : 261–282. Reference Source Oliveira L, Santos L, Schmaltz A, et al. : Scientific sexism: the gender bias in the scientific production of the Universidade de São Paulo. Rev. Saude Publica. 2021; 55 . Publisher Full Text Organización Internacional del Trabajo: Hacia un futuro mejor para las mujeres en el trabajo: la opinión de las mujeres y de los hombres.2017. Reference Source Osorio Madrid R: Las mujeres investigadoras en educación; sus logros y retos. La ventana. Revista de estudios de género. 2005; 3 (21): 143–186. Recuperado en 26 de marzo de 2023, de. Reference Source Ortiz-Ortega A, Sánchez SA: Miradas comparativas para el análisis de las trayectorias académicas de las investigadoras en México. Reencuentro. Análisis De Problemas Universitarios. 2017; 29 : 171–192. Reference Source Palumbo M, Vacca L, País M: Repensando nuestras metodologías críticas: prácticas de intervención/investigación con perspectiva de género(s). Convergencia. 2022; 29 . Publisher Full Text Peñaranda MM, Pulido RP, Daza DD l R, et al. : Libro de Memorias: Encuentro Internacional de Investigación y Espíritu Empresarial X Versión (U. F. de P. S. Ocaña (ed.)).2021. Reference Source Pérez A, Pro A: Evaluación nacional de actitudes y valores hacia la ciencia en entornos educativos. Madrid: FECYT; 2005. Publisher Full Text Pérez ED: Mujeres intelectuales y científicas en Barranquilla 1970-2015. Balint G, Antala B, Carty C, et al. , editors. Universidad del Norte; 2019; Vol. 7 (1). Publisher Full Text Pinho-Gomes A, Peters S, Thompson K, et al. : Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship. BMJ Glob. Health. 2020; 5 (7): e002922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Pons O, Dolors M, Puig C, et al. : Análisis de la Igualdad de Oportunidades de Género en la Ciencia y la Tecnología: Las carreras profesionales de las mujeres científicas y tecnólogas. Intangible Capital. 2013; 9 : 65–90. Publisher Full Text Prieto de Alizo L: Características funcionales del investigador establecido. Quórum Académico. 2008; 5 (2): 135–153. Reference Source Quintero Á, Ibáñez V: Historia, Identidad e Intervención Profesional. III Encuentro Interuniversitario de Investigadores en Trabajo Social. Eleuthera. 2012; 6 : 266–270. Reference Source Quintero FB: Ser Mujer en la Universidad: El Caso de las Docentes Investigadoras de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México; 2019. Reference Source Ramírez López DK, Bermúdez Urbina FM: Avances, retos y desafíos: aproximación al estado del conocimiento de los estudios de género en educación superior en México. Entreciencias: diálogos en la Sociedad del Conocimiento. 2015; 3 : 91–105. Reference Source Ramos AMG: ¿Camuflaje o transformación? Estrategia profesional de las mujeres en carreras tecnológicas altamente masculinizadas. Educar. 2014; 50 : 187–205. Reference Source Restrepo-Arango C: Representação do gênero feminino na área V das ciências sociais no Sistema Nacional de Pesquisa. Encontros Bibli: Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação. 2016; 21 (47): 27–40. Publisher Full Text Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar CG, Rivera-Lozada O, editors. Gender gaps in research: Literature review.2023a. Publisher Full Text Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar CG, Rivera-Lozada O: Gender gaps in research: Literature review (Reporting guidelines).2023b. Publisher Full Text Rivera-Lozada O, Rivera-lozada IC, Bonilla-Asalde CA: Factors associated with scientific production of professors working at a private university in Peru: An analytical cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved].F1000Res.2022; 11 : 1219. Publisher Full Text Rodal AB: Los estudios universitarios feministas y con perspectiva de género en España (2010-2015). Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI. 2017; 42 : 45–61. Publisher Full Text Rojas-Solís JL, Espinosa-Guzmán D, Espíndola-Larios M, et al. : Actitud hacia la investigación en universitarios mexicanos: Un análisis exploratorio. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores. 2021; 8 (SPE4). Publisher Full Text Ruiz CB: Mujeres en la educación: desigualdades sociales más allá del género. Análisis. Revista Colombiana de Humanidades. 2021; 53 . Publisher Full Text Sá C, Cowley S, Martinez M, et al. : Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa. PLoS One. 2020; 15 (10): e0240903. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Science Metrix Inc: Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators. Development of bibliometric indicators to measure women’s contribution to scientific publications.2018. Reference Source Schreiner C, Sjøberg S: Sowing the Seeds of ROSE Background, Rationale, Questionnaire Development and Data Collection for ROSE. A Comparative Study of Students Views of Science and Science Education. Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo; 2004. Serrano M: En-Contexto: Una Ventana Abierta a la Divulgación Científica de las Mujeres. En-Contexto. 2018; 6 : 43–45. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Sougou NM, Ndiaye O, Nabil F, et al. : Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research. PLoS One. 2022; 17 (3): e0265413. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Stromquist NP: Education Policies for Gender Equity: Probing into State Responses. Education policy analysis archivesducation policy analysis archives. 2013; 21 (1068–2341): 1–28. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Susinos T, Parrilla Á: Investigación inclusiva en tiempos díficiles. Certezas provisionales y debates pendientes. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobreCalidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación. 2013; 11 : 87–98. Reference Source Torralbo H, Guizardi M: Las mujeres y el envejecimiento en la investigación social (1950-2018). Revista Estudios Feministas, Florianópolis. 2020; 28 . Publisher Full Text Reference Source Torres RG: Violencia epistémica e individualización: tensiones y nudos para la igualdad de género en las ies. Reencuentro. Análisis De Problemas Universitarios. 2017; 28 . Reference Source Truffa AC: Percepciones de la ciencia y estereotipos de género: Un proyecto de investigación con adolescentes de educación secundaria. Fundamentos en Humanidades. 2012; XIII : 87–98. Reference Source UNESCO (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura): Cracking the Code: Girls’ and Women’s Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). París, Francia: UNESCO; 2019. Reference Source Valenzuela FA, Vera-Gajardo A, De Armas Pedraza T, et al. : Bichos raros: Género y subjetividades en el campo de la investigación en matemáticas en Chile. Psicoperspectivas. Individuo y Sociedad. 2022; 21 (2). Publisher Full Text Vargas C, Lutz M, Papuzinski C, et al. : Género, mujeres e investigación científica. Medwave. 2020; 20 (2). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Vargas D, Requena Biólogo J, Caputo Biólogo C, et al. : Género en la ciencia venezolana: Desvanecimiento de la brecha. Interciencia. 2016; 41 (3): 162–170. Reference Source Washburn S, Ureña V, Mata A: Promoción de la equidad y cohesión social en la Universidad de Costa Rica. Educación. 2013; 37 : 39–77. Publisher Full Text Reference Source World Economic Forum: Global Gender Gap Report 2022.2022. Reference Source Zacharia C: Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender equality. EPRS: European Parliamentary Research Service; 2020. Reference Source Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Departamento de Economía, Universidad del Cauca, Cauca, Colombia 2 Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru Isabel Cristina Rivera-Lozada Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Gissel Carolina Escobar Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Oriana Rivera-Lozada Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Universidad del Cauca Cross ref 501100005682 assigned to researchers Rivera-Lozada. Call Young Researchers and Innovators of the Department of Cauca, BPIN code No. 2020000100043 to Escobar Pérez. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 19 Feb 2024, 12:1302 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3 version 2 Revised Published: 22 Jan 2024, 12:1302 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.2 version 1 Published: 11 Oct 2023, 12:1302 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.1 Copyright © 2024 Rivera-Lozada IC et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Rivera-Lozada IC, Escobar GC and Rivera-Lozada O. Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140694.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Feb 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Huancahuire-Vega S. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r215196 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-215196 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Jun 2024 Salomon Huancahuire-Vega , Peruvian Union University UPeU, Lima, Peru Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r215196 This is a very interesting work that aims, through a systematic bibliographic analysis, to identify the determinants of the gender gap in scientific research. The work is well structured, written, and presented. I only have a few comments: 1. ... Continue reading READ ALL This is a very interesting work that aims, through a systematic bibliographic analysis, to identify the determinants of the gender gap in scientific research. The work is well structured, written, and presented. I only have a few comments: 1. There is an apparent database selection bias (despite having included Scopus and WoS, there is an inclination towards regional databases that publish in Spanish and Portuguese, but databases with a different language have not been considered to English). Because of this, I suggest that this limitation of the study be mentioned. 2. Be careful with the range of years of the bibliographic analysis. In the methodology section, it says 2012 - 2023 but in the results they mention 2012 - 2022 3. Could you mention the exact Boolean equation? Table 1 has keywords but the equation is not shown. 4. I do not understand why to calculate the sample size if the complementary materials show that they have followed the Prisma methodology. 5. In the Methodology - data processing section, it says Figure 2 contains the diagram of the process flow carried out to obtain our RBP. However, Figure 2 doesn't look like a flowchart, why not use the Prism flowchart instead? 5. Correct in the results section the first paragraph says figure 3 but it seems to refer to figure 2. 6. In my opinion, tables 5 and 6 and figure 4 are not of major relevance to what this study proposes. The journal, its SJR, the researcher, do not have greater relevance in the identification of determinants of gender gap in research. 7. On page 12 it says: The systemic analysis of the RBP allowed us to categorize the barriers contributing to the gender gap in research into four dimensions with their respective indicators... I consider this to be the main result of the study, on which you should mention more details of how this determination was reached. All the previous results are analyzes of bibliometric aspects. The latter comes from a review of the content of the selected works, from which these 4 dimensions are determined. 8. There is no mention of a discussion section. I think the discussion has been going on since he begins to describe the 4 dimensions on page 12. 9. It would be good to mention the limitations of the study Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: public health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Huancahuire-Vega S. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r215196 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-215196 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248381 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248381 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 May 2024 Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez , UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248381 I have read this latest version very carefully, and as I have commented since the first review, the article is very well structured from a methodological point of view, complying with all the characteristics that a systematic review article should ... Continue reading READ ALL I have read this latest version very carefully, and as I have commented since the first review, the article is very well structured from a methodological point of view, complying with all the characteristics that a systematic review article should have, the topic is very interesting and relevant. in the line of gender research, which is why I once again congratulate the authors for such an excellent work. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Education and invation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248381 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248381 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248382 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248382 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Apr 2024 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248382 I have reviewed the three versions of the article with interest, care and dedicating the time necessary for its rigorous revision. But the authors' response to the problem of sample selection is clearly insufficient. They clearly recognized in their response ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reviewed the three versions of the article with interest, care and dedicating the time necessary for its rigorous revision. But the authors' response to the problem of sample selection is clearly insufficient. They clearly recognized in their response that there is a Latin American bias to their systematic review, but they have not revised the article in line with this problem. The authors stated in their comments that this selection bias “was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others”. They also recognize that “the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts”. The problem is that they recognize that all their results are biased in the referee response but not in the main text of the new version 3 of the paper. A systematic review of Latin American literature is a very valuable exercise when it is made explicit that it is an analysis of Latin American literature, and it is not intended to be a systematic analysis of "all" literature and generalized to all countries. That is all. The paper should make this selection bias problem explicit from the beginning, in the title, in the abstract, in the introduction, in the methodology, in the results - in fact I have not seen anywhere in the paper that they have made explicit reference to this problem. Only at the end of the conclusions is there a brief, insufficient, and not at all clear and explicit, reference to this problem (Is the inclusion of this sentence at the end of the conclusions the incorporation of the limitations referred to by the authors in their response?). This is not acceptable for an article that claims to be systematic, serious, rigorous and scientific. In fact, the entire introduction and description of the methodology should be changed to make it explicit, and not hide the existence of this strong bias until the last sentence of the conclusions. This has been the response of the authors to my comments to version 2, to insert at the end of the conclusions a short, vague, and imprecise sentence about the problem of sample selection bias in their entire analysis. The problem of sample selection bias is not a conclusion to your work, it is a limitation of your entire analysis that should be acknowledged and made explicit from the outset. In this sense, the title of the paper "Gender gaps in research: a systematic review" is misleading and should be changed to one that reflects the bias "Gender gaps in research: a Latin American literature systematic review", or other that explicitly recognizes the bias in the selection of the literature. Also, it has to be explicit in the description of methodology (Methods, Data processing) and in Bibliometric analysis results, not only in the final sentence of the conclusion. Because otherwise, as it now appears at the end of the conclusions, it seems that it is something that authors do not want to recognize. As I have just said, a review of Latin American literature is a very valuable exercise when it is made explicit that it is an analysis of Latin American literature, and it is not intended to be a general and complete systematic analysis of "all" literature. After these changes that clear acknowledge at the outset and throughout the title, the methodology and data description, the existence of this bias, then the article will be ready to be accepted for indexing. So I have to maintain my decision of 'Approved with reservations', and I insist, because of the insufficient authors' response to solve the problem (or make explicit) the recognized problem of selection bias in their research. This is just my opinion. And I am sorry for any inconvenience my opinion may cause to the authors. I understand the need for all of us in academia to publish in scientific journals. But I think it is my duty to try to be serious and rigorous when one accepts the review of scientific papers. Article review processes should be a dialogue and an exchange of ideas and opinions, in which the arbitration of an editorial team is always positive, or at least that is how I understand it. And in this sense, I am open to further discussion with the authors on the need or not to address the issue of sample selection in their article. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248382 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248382 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 Jan 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161374.r239456 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v2#referee-response-239456 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Feb 2024 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161374.r239456 I have been able to read the authors' response to my comments. I don't think they really answer my questions. For example, they have added table 2a with the queries, but they do not show the results ... Continue reading READ ALL I have been able to read the authors' response to my comments. I don't think they really answer my questions. For example, they have added table 2a with the queries, but they do not show the results from the main database they claim to use (Scopus). Maybe I am wrong, but I have not been able to identify this database in table 2a. Perhaps you could clarify this (I have run a Scopus query with "scientific publications" + "women" and got 502 potential papers). Authors states that "These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research". I do not see Scopus in table 2a, I am sure I am missing something because I do not see any result both in Scopus or WoS in this Table2a. Also, authors states: "Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias." I think this statement is not accurate. In my opinion, the paper has a large sample selection bias precisely because of the type of queries selected and the type of databases selected. Then the systematic review is not representative of all the literature about gender gaps because its selection bias. In any case, the authors do not answer my question "Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time? Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used?" This bias is important because the analysis of the results has mainly analysed Spanish-speaking authors, is this correct? are they the ones with the most citations, and what about English-speaking authors? In any case, I think it is not the time to redo the analysis now. So, I maintain my congratulations to the authors and also my decision "approved with reservations". Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161374.r239456 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v2#referee-response-239456 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit in the perception and situated knowledge that we as Latin American researchers may have. In this case we share the assertion that searches in Scopus and WOS repositories with Boolean expressions in English will yield a greater number of literature, which would lead to new results that demand other analyses. Therefore, this was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others. In spite of the above, we believe that the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts. Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit in the perception and situated knowledge that we as Latin American researchers may have. In this case we share the assertion that searches in Scopus and WOS repositories with Boolean expressions in English will yield a greater number of literature, which would lead to new results that demand other analyses. Therefore, this was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others. In spite of the above, we believe that the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts. Competing Interests: We present no conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit in the perception and situated knowledge that we as Latin American researchers may have. In this case we share the assertion that searches in Scopus and WOS repositories with Boolean expressions in English will yield a greater number of literature, which would lead to new results that demand other analyses. Therefore, this was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others. In spite of the above, we believe that the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts. Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit in the perception and situated knowledge that we as Latin American researchers may have. In this case we share the assertion that searches in Scopus and WOS repositories with Boolean expressions in English will yield a greater number of literature, which would lead to new results that demand other analyses. Therefore, this was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others. In spite of the above, we believe that the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts. Competing Interests: We present no conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r215190 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-215190 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Dec 2023 Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez , UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r215190 The research addresses a very interesting and relevant topic at this time as is the identification of the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide ideas on how to close these gaps. The dimensions they used to ... Continue reading READ ALL The research addresses a very interesting and relevant topic at this time as is the identification of the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide ideas on how to close these gaps. The dimensions they used to classify gender gaps: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile, seem to me appropriate and based on the existing literature, so I congratulate the authors for their choice. The tables and figures help to understand all the information in the article. The conclusions are clear, well-structured and in accordance with the research objectives. The bibliography is well selected and well used throughout the document. Additionally, the document is well structured and well written. As a suggestion I propose: 1. Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. Finally, I would like once again to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Education and invation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r215190 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-215190 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru 22 Jan 2024 Author Response Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of ... Continue reading Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. are included in the text Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. are included in the text Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru 22 Jan 2024 Author Response Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of ... Continue reading Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. are included in the text Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. are included in the text Competing Interests: No conflict of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r217668 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-217668 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Nov 2023 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r217668 The paper provides a systematic review that aims to identify the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide insights on how to close these differences. The subject is of great interest and relevance. The study identified ... Continue reading READ ALL The paper provides a systematic review that aims to identify the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide insights on how to close these differences. The subject is of great interest and relevance. The study identified four dimensions to classify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production, and researcher profile. The document appears to be well structured and provides detailed information on how the systematic review has performed. 1) My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Escot L. Reviewer Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r217668 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-217668 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru 22 Jan 2024 Author Response My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals ... Continue reading My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? R/ The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? R/ Accordingly, the years shown in Table 5 refer to the period of JRS coverage for journals and we show this to highlight 10 of the journals of the PBR, the ones with the highest score, thus informing the reader of the time of measurement of these journals by the JRS index and, therefore, their prestige. There are 10 journals that contain 1 PBR article each, so they represent 12.04% of the PBR used. Regarding the last question, not all articles are included in JRS, 44.57% of the PBR is found in journals that are measured with the JRS index, 42.16% of the PBR are articles from journals that have not been measured with this international index, so they are not found in figure 3 or table 5 and 13.26% are articles from web pages. Thesis, a book and a paper. 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. R/ The research proposes to classify the systematic review of literature into four classifications: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile. Scientific production grouped the documents that focus their attention on scientific production by profession or by female researchers. In this perspective, the research presented in this section was presented due to its thematic relevance and proposed contributions, as it was selected from the documents with the highest citation. This was added to the paper My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? R/ The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? R/ Accordingly, the years shown in Table 5 refer to the period of JRS coverage for journals and we show this to highlight 10 of the journals of the PBR, the ones with the highest score, thus informing the reader of the time of measurement of these journals by the JRS index and, therefore, their prestige. There are 10 journals that contain 1 PBR article each, so they represent 12.04% of the PBR used. Regarding the last question, not all articles are included in JRS, 44.57% of the PBR is found in journals that are measured with the JRS index, 42.16% of the PBR are articles from journals that have not been measured with this international index, so they are not found in figure 3 or table 5 and 13.26% are articles from web pages. Thesis, a book and a paper. 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. R/ The research proposes to classify the systematic review of literature into four classifications: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile. Scientific production grouped the documents that focus their attention on scientific production by profession or by female researchers. In this perspective, the research presented in this section was presented due to its thematic relevance and proposed contributions, as it was selected from the documents with the highest citation. This was added to the paper Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA , South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru 22 Jan 2024 Author Response My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals ... Continue reading My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? R/ The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? R/ Accordingly, the years shown in Table 5 refer to the period of JRS coverage for journals and we show this to highlight 10 of the journals of the PBR, the ones with the highest score, thus informing the reader of the time of measurement of these journals by the JRS index and, therefore, their prestige. There are 10 journals that contain 1 PBR article each, so they represent 12.04% of the PBR used. Regarding the last question, not all articles are included in JRS, 44.57% of the PBR is found in journals that are measured with the JRS index, 42.16% of the PBR are articles from journals that have not been measured with this international index, so they are not found in figure 3 or table 5 and 13.26% are articles from web pages. Thesis, a book and a paper. 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. R/ The research proposes to classify the systematic review of literature into four classifications: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile. Scientific production grouped the documents that focus their attention on scientific production by profession or by female researchers. In this perspective, the research presented in this section was presented due to its thematic relevance and proposed contributions, as it was selected from the documents with the highest citation. This was added to the paper My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? R/ The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? R/ Accordingly, the years shown in Table 5 refer to the period of JRS coverage for journals and we show this to highlight 10 of the journals of the PBR, the ones with the highest score, thus informing the reader of the time of measurement of these journals by the JRS index and, therefore, their prestige. There are 10 journals that contain 1 PBR article each, so they represent 12.04% of the PBR used. Regarding the last question, not all articles are included in JRS, 44.57% of the PBR is found in journals that are measured with the JRS index, 42.16% of the PBR are articles from journals that have not been measured with this international index, so they are not found in figure 3 or table 5 and 13.26% are articles from web pages. Thesis, a book and a paper. 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. R/ The research proposes to classify the systematic review of literature into four classifications: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile. Scientific production grouped the documents that focus their attention on scientific production by profession or by female researchers. In this perspective, the research presented in this section was presented due to its thematic relevance and proposed contributions, as it was selected from the documents with the highest citation. This was added to the paper Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 11 Oct 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 19 Feb 24 read read read Version 2 (revision) 22 Jan 24 read Version 1 11 Oct 23 read read Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez , UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru Salomon Huancahuire-Vega , Peruvian Union University UPeU, Lima, Peru Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Huancahuire-Vega S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Jun 2024 | for Version 3 Salomon Huancahuire-Vega , Peruvian Union University UPeU, Lima, Peru 0 Views copyright © 2024 Huancahuire-Vega S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is a very interesting work that aims, through a systematic bibliographic analysis, to identify the determinants of the gender gap in scientific research. The work is well structured, written, and presented. I only have a few comments: 1. There is an apparent database selection bias (despite having included Scopus and WoS, there is an inclination towards regional databases that publish in Spanish and Portuguese, but databases with a different language have not been considered to English). Because of this, I suggest that this limitation of the study be mentioned. 2. Be careful with the range of years of the bibliographic analysis. In the methodology section, it says 2012 - 2023 but in the results they mention 2012 - 2022 3. Could you mention the exact Boolean equation? Table 1 has keywords but the equation is not shown. 4. I do not understand why to calculate the sample size if the complementary materials show that they have followed the Prisma methodology. 5. In the Methodology - data processing section, it says Figure 2 contains the diagram of the process flow carried out to obtain our RBP. However, Figure 2 doesn't look like a flowchart, why not use the Prism flowchart instead? 5. Correct in the results section the first paragraph says figure 3 but it seems to refer to figure 2. 6. In my opinion, tables 5 and 6 and figure 4 are not of major relevance to what this study proposes. The journal, its SJR, the researcher, do not have greater relevance in the identification of determinants of gender gap in research. 7. On page 12 it says: The systemic analysis of the RBP allowed us to categorize the barriers contributing to the gender gap in research into four dimensions with their respective indicators... I consider this to be the main result of the study, on which you should mention more details of how this determination was reached. All the previous results are analyzes of bibliometric aspects. The latter comes from a review of the content of the selected works, from which these 4 dimensions are determined. 8. There is no mention of a discussion section. I think the discussion has been going on since he begins to describe the 4 dimensions on page 12. 9. It would be good to mention the limitations of the study Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise public health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Huancahuire-Vega S. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r215196) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-215196 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 May 2024 | for Version 3 Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez , UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru 0 Views copyright © 2024 Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have read this latest version very carefully, and as I have commented since the first review, the article is very well structured from a methodological point of view, complying with all the characteristics that a systematic review article should have, the topic is very interesting and relevant. in the line of gender research, which is why I once again congratulate the authors for such an excellent work. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Education and invation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248381) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248381 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Apr 2024 | for Version 3 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2024 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have reviewed the three versions of the article with interest, care and dedicating the time necessary for its rigorous revision. But the authors' response to the problem of sample selection is clearly insufficient. They clearly recognized in their response that there is a Latin American bias to their systematic review, but they have not revised the article in line with this problem. The authors stated in their comments that this selection bias “was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others”. They also recognize that “the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts”. The problem is that they recognize that all their results are biased in the referee response but not in the main text of the new version 3 of the paper. A systematic review of Latin American literature is a very valuable exercise when it is made explicit that it is an analysis of Latin American literature, and it is not intended to be a systematic analysis of "all" literature and generalized to all countries. That is all. The paper should make this selection bias problem explicit from the beginning, in the title, in the abstract, in the introduction, in the methodology, in the results - in fact I have not seen anywhere in the paper that they have made explicit reference to this problem. Only at the end of the conclusions is there a brief, insufficient, and not at all clear and explicit, reference to this problem (Is the inclusion of this sentence at the end of the conclusions the incorporation of the limitations referred to by the authors in their response?). This is not acceptable for an article that claims to be systematic, serious, rigorous and scientific. In fact, the entire introduction and description of the methodology should be changed to make it explicit, and not hide the existence of this strong bias until the last sentence of the conclusions. This has been the response of the authors to my comments to version 2, to insert at the end of the conclusions a short, vague, and imprecise sentence about the problem of sample selection bias in their entire analysis. The problem of sample selection bias is not a conclusion to your work, it is a limitation of your entire analysis that should be acknowledged and made explicit from the outset. In this sense, the title of the paper "Gender gaps in research: a systematic review" is misleading and should be changed to one that reflects the bias "Gender gaps in research: a Latin American literature systematic review", or other that explicitly recognizes the bias in the selection of the literature. Also, it has to be explicit in the description of methodology (Methods, Data processing) and in Bibliometric analysis results, not only in the final sentence of the conclusion. Because otherwise, as it now appears at the end of the conclusions, it seems that it is something that authors do not want to recognize. As I have just said, a review of Latin American literature is a very valuable exercise when it is made explicit that it is an analysis of Latin American literature, and it is not intended to be a general and complete systematic analysis of "all" literature. After these changes that clear acknowledge at the outset and throughout the title, the methodology and data description, the existence of this bias, then the article will be ready to be accepted for indexing. So I have to maintain my decision of 'Approved with reservations', and I insist, because of the insufficient authors' response to solve the problem (or make explicit) the recognized problem of selection bias in their research. This is just my opinion. And I am sorry for any inconvenience my opinion may cause to the authors. I understand the need for all of us in academia to publish in scientific journals. But I think it is my duty to try to be serious and rigorous when one accepts the review of scientific papers. Article review processes should be a dialogue and an exchange of ideas and opinions, in which the arbitration of an editorial team is always positive, or at least that is how I understand it. And in this sense, I am open to further discussion with the authors on the need or not to address the issue of sample selection in their article. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Escot L. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.162708.r248382) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3#referee-response-248382 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Feb 2024 | for Version 2 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2024 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have been able to read the authors' response to my comments. I don't think they really answer my questions. For example, they have added table 2a with the queries, but they do not show the results from the main database they claim to use (Scopus). Maybe I am wrong, but I have not been able to identify this database in table 2a. Perhaps you could clarify this (I have run a Scopus query with "scientific publications" + "women" and got 502 potential papers). Authors states that "These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research". I do not see Scopus in table 2a, I am sure I am missing something because I do not see any result both in Scopus or WoS in this Table2a. Also, authors states: "Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias." I think this statement is not accurate. In my opinion, the paper has a large sample selection bias precisely because of the type of queries selected and the type of databases selected. Then the systematic review is not representative of all the literature about gender gaps because its selection bias. In any case, the authors do not answer my question "Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time? Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used?" This bias is important because the analysis of the results has mainly analysed Spanish-speaking authors, is this correct? are they the ones with the most citations, and what about English-speaking authors? In any case, I think it is not the time to redo the analysis now. So, I maintain my congratulations to the authors and also my decision "approved with reservations". Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, Facultad de educación, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru Dear Reviewer We apologize for not having answered the questions appropriately. Surely the selection of Boolean expressions and repositories privileged Spanish-speaking authors in consideration of the subjectivities that are implicit in the perception and situated knowledge that we as Latin American researchers may have. In this case we share the assertion that searches in Scopus and WOS repositories with Boolean expressions in English will yield a greater number of literature, which would lead to new results that demand other analyses. Therefore, this was added in the limitations of the article, since incorporating more sample would involve changing results, discussion, conclusions, among others. In spite of the above, we believe that the results cannot be generalized to all countries although it makes a good reading of what happens in Latin America and definitely cannot be generalized to all times that are so changing and respond to situational contexts. View more View less Competing Interests We present no conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Escot L. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161374.r239456) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v2#referee-response-239456 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Dec 2023 | for Version 1 Yolvi Javier Ocaña Fernandez , UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS, Lima, Peru 0 Views copyright © 2023 Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The research addresses a very interesting and relevant topic at this time as is the identification of the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide ideas on how to close these gaps. The dimensions they used to classify gender gaps: academic supply, research policies, scientific production and researcher profile, seem to me appropriate and based on the existing literature, so I congratulate the authors for their choice. The tables and figures help to understand all the information in the article. The conclusions are clear, well-structured and in accordance with the research objectives. The bibliography is well selected and well used throughout the document. Additionally, the document is well structured and well written. As a suggestion I propose: 1. Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. Finally, I would like once again to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Education and invation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru Consider the inclusion of more articles from other databases, in order to avoid some biases, such as selection bias. It could also help to broaden the discussion of the research. The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2. Expand the introduction so that references from other countries can be included, so that this valuable information can be used in other countries and especially background information related to the dimension of the research. are included in the text View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest reply Respond Report a concern Javier Ocaña Fernandez Y. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r215190) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-215190 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Nov 2023 | for Version 1 Lorenzo Escot , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2023 Escot L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The paper provides a systematic review that aims to identify the determinants of gender asymmetries in scientific research and provide insights on how to close these differences. The subject is of great interest and relevance. The study identified four dimensions to classify the determinants of gender gaps in scientific research: academic supply, research policies, scientific production, and researcher profile. The document appears to be well structured and provides detailed information on how the systematic review has performed. 1) My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied Economics, Gender Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 22 Jan 2024 ORIANA RIVERA LOZADA, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health,, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Peru My main drawback with respect to the systematic analysis of the literature is in the selected databases. There is a clear sample selection bias towards Latin American and Hispanic journals as a consequence of the inclusion of the Redalyc index, since almost 50% of the bibliographic references found come from this repository. Do the authors think that their results could be generalized to all countries and to any time?. Would the resulting papers selected change if other repositories had been used? R/ The repositories used for the research were, in order: Scopus, Redalyc, La referencia, Base-Search.net, Web of Science, Scielo, DOAJ and Ebsco, considering that they met the criteria of fields Boolean expressions, temporal horizon and type of publication (Table 2). These repositories were filtered with the keywords shown in table 2a and it is precisely there where Redalyc presents the largest number of documents related to the keywords of interest for this research. Perhaps another type of Boolean expressions in search offers repository participations different from those presented in this document. According to the above, we consider that there is no selection bias. 2) In some cases, the information on the characteristics of the sample of bibliographic references obtained does not allow relevant conclusions to be drawn. For example, Table 5 shows the Coverage years of the SJR index for the highlighted journals in the RBP. I understand that it is total coverage years in SJR, not the years used in the RBP. Is the information in this table really relevant? this information is only of the 5% of the RBP used?, are all the journals and all the papers included in SJR? R/ Accordingly, the years shown in Table 5 refer to the period of JRS coverage for journals and we show this to highlight 10 of the journals of the PBR, the ones with the highest score, thus informing the reader of the time of measurement of these journals by the JRS index and, therefore, their prestige. There are 10 journals that contain 1 PBR article each, so they represent 12.04% of the PBR used. Regarding the last question, not all articles are included in JRS, 44.57% of the PBR is found in journals that are measured with the JRS index, 42.16% of the PBR are articles from journals that have not been measured with this international index, so they are not found in figure 3 or table 5 and 13.26% are articles from web pages. Thesis, a book and a paper. 3) Section "iii) Scientific production" summarizes the main findings of a selection of articles. It is not clear what criteria were used to select the articles explained in this section. How were they selected?, are they the most cited articles? are those published in the highest impact journals? or is it a purely random selection? It is not clear, therefore, how the factors explained in section iii) are select as the main factors behind the gender gap. Are these factor in scientific literature supported by the quality of the journal?, or by the number of cites?, or whether this is simply a purely historical review?. In any case, I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work. R/ The research proposes to classify the systematic review of literature into four classifications: i) academic offer, ii) research policy, iii) scientific production and iv) research profile. Scientific production grouped the documents that focus their attention on scientific production by profession or by female researchers. In this perspective, the research presented in this section was presented due to its thematic relevance and proposed contributions, as it was selected from the documents with the highest citation. This was added to the paper View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Escot L. Peer Review Report For: Gender gaps in research: a systematic review [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :1302 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154078.r217668) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v1#referee-response-217668 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Gender gaps in research:\u00A0a systematic...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Rivera-Lozada IC et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302", templates : { twitter : "Gender gaps in research:\u00A0a systematic review. Rivera-Lozada IC et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1302/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/140694/162708") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "162708"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "261007": 0, "261010": 0, "261008": 0, "215191": 0, "215190": 26, "261013": 0, "215195": 0, "228379": 0, "215194": 0, "261018": 0, "215193": 0, "215192": 0, "261016": 0, "261023": 0, "228382": 0, "261022": 0, "215197": 0, "228380": 0, "261020": 0, "215196": 25, "228387": 0, "228384": 0, "228391": 0, "228390": 0, "266412": 0, "228394": 0, "224042": 0, "266413": 0, "228393": 0, "266414": 0, "266415": 0, "224047": 0, "224046": 0, "224045": 0, "266410": 0, "228396": 0, "266411": 0, "224051": 0, "224050": 0, "224049": 0, "224048": 0, "224055": 0, "266416": 0, "224054": 0, "266417": 0, "266418": 0, "266419": 0, "217663": 0, "248382": 10, "248381": 3, "217660": 0, "217671": 0, "217668": 49, "217675": 0, "217674": 0, "217673": 0, "217679": 0, "217678": 0, "217676": 0, "239457": 0, "239456": 26, "231035": 0, "246909": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "5a27fe44-a292-478f-a873-d6e37ab8de00"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });