A new study finds that scientific papers authored by women are cited less often in patented inventions than those written by men. For women in science, the findings highlight a critical barrier to career advancement, as patent citations can boost visibility and perceptions of impact. However, the study results also reveal a deeper bias in how the scientific contributions of female researchers are perceived and valued.
The study, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, examined the patent citations of over 10 million scientific articles from some of the most frequently cited science journals. They also examined citations of 185 paper twins, where two teams of scientists (one led by a woman and one led by a man) published the same idea around the same time. Finally, they conducted an experiment asking 400 participants with doctoral degrees in science to evaluate research authored by a man and a woman. All of the studies led to findings of bias against the work completed by female researchers.
In the analysis of over 10 million papers, a 7% gender gap emerged, with men cited more frequently in patents. This gap emerged after controlling for factors likely to impact citation rates.
However, when men and women published the same idea around the same time (paper twins), the gender gap in citation jumped to a whopping 40%. When there were two papers to choose from that were essentially identical, it made it even more likely that the male-authored paper would be selected for citation. “Strikingly, this effect size is much larger than in the large sample analysis, suggesting that the fact that the same idea is disclosed in several papers might magnify the role of gender inequality,” the authors explain.
Finally, to determine how much of the gender gap could be attributed to pure bias, rather than unmeasured differences in the papers themselves, the researchers conducted a controlled experiment. Four hundred participants with doctoral degrees were assigned to read the same research abstract. The only difference was the lead author’s name, which was randomly assigned as either a male name (Robert or David Anderson) or a female name (Elizabeth or Sarah Anderson). Participants felt the discovery in the research abstract was more important when they believed its principal author was a man.
Perhaps more importantly, participants spent more time reading the abstract when they believed its principal author was Robert or David (114 seconds when told it was male-authored versus 98 seconds when told it was female-authored). “Inventors are likely to pay less attention to papers that they deem less important and may also fail to appreciate the importance of an idea if they do not pay close attention to it,” the researchers explain.
These findings carry significant implications, not only for women in science but for women across the workforce. For female scientists, under-citing women’s work in patents is a significant barrier to their career advancement. In a system where patent citations are treated as a marker of real-world relevance and innovation, being left out can impact a scientist’s career trajectory.
These citations often inform decisions about funding and recognition. Tools like Lens.org, which connect academic work with global patents, underscore this connection and reveal how fewer citations could lead to missed opportunities. “Investors and funding agencies can find whether the science they fund enables outcomes for society through new inventions and products,” the Lens.org website states, highlighting the importance of these citations to the funding community.
The second implication reaches far beyond the world of science. It reveals how gender bias operates more generally. Women’s ideas are often overlooked, even when indistinguishable from their male peers. Prior research has exposed similar patterns of gender bias in music careers, innovation in business, and entrepreneurship. This study reveals that the same pattern holds for scientific innovation. The researchers suggest inventors should be incentivized to prioritize the best ideas, regardless of origin, since building new technologies requires significant time, money, and risk. Bias, in other words, should be outweighed by practicality. The research findings show that it is not.
When the name at the top of the paper changed, so did the attention it received and its perceived value. The takeaway is that even when women produce the same high-quality ideas, they’re not always given the same shot at recognition. And that’s not just a science problem—it’s a workplace reality that women across sectors will recognize all too well.