Analyzing Trends in Scientific Research

The UK's cybersecurity industry is still overwhelmingly dominated by men, LinkedIn data shows, with fewer than one in five roles occupied by a woman. In May 2024, women made up just 17.9% of the industry, while men accounted for 82.1%, according to LinkedIn's Economic Graph data. That's a slight improvement on the year before, as women occupied just 17.5% of the nation's cybersecurity roles in May 2023. Cybersecurity is dominated by men due to a combination of historical, cultural and systematic factors, according to cybersecurity expert and LinkedIn Top Voice Jane Frankland. "Historically, cyber has been perceived as a male-oriented domain, leading to a lack of female role models and mentors for aspiring women," she tells LinkedIn News. These days, there are multiple female cyber role models across the UK and Europe, Frankland notes, pointing to Jessica Barker MBE PhD, Sarah Armstrong-Smith, Sian John MBE, Jenny Radcliffe - The People Hacker 🎤🎧🧠, Lisa Forte, Becky Pinkard and Amanda Finch FCIIS. "This perception is often reinforced by educational environments that do not actively encourage or support women to pursue careers in computer science, which is often a gateway into cybersecurity." When McKinsey & Company looked at this they found that a significant drop in the percentage of women in STEM classes happens at two points: during the transition from secondary education to university, when it drops 18%, and during the transition from university to the workforce, when it drops another 15%. "Then, there are often unconscious biases in hiring practices and workplace cultures that can create unwelcoming or challenging conditions for women," Frankland adds. "For example, where women have to work harder, for longer and gain more certifications just to prove they have the competence to do the job." The cybersecurity gender gap isn't as large in some other countries. In Italy, for example, women occupied 26.7% of the nation's cybersecurity roles in May 2024, and in Singapore they made up 26.2%, according to LinkedIn data. Chart 1: Percentage of cybersecurity workers that are female Chart 2: Year-on-year percentage increase in the number of cybersecurity workers that are female EGRI research note: https://lnkd.in/geHWHaxg

🚨 New Research Alert – and it couldn’t be more timely! 📚 Last Saturday was International Women's Day 2025 — a perfect moment to face a persistent reality: gender discrimination remains a pervasive problem in science (and society at large). One area where this becomes especially apparent? Authorship — science’s most valuable currency. In our new prospective meta-analysis, just published in the Journal of Management, our global team (led by George Banks) sheds light on gender differences in authorship experiences across academia. Our study — spanning 46 samples, 3,565 researchers, and 12 countries — reveals clear and concerning patterns: 🔎 Women report more disagreements about authorship, 🔎 Less comfort discussing authorship with collaborators, and 🔎 Greater concerns about receiving the credit they deserve. This isn’t just a publishing issue — it’s a career trajectory issue. When intellectual contributions go unrecognized, careers are derailed, opportunities shrink, and inequalities deepen. It’s critical to remember: True equity in academia starts with transparent, fair, and OPEN authorship practices (#openscience) — ensuring all voices are heard, credited, and valued. 📖✊ 🔗 Read the full study — link in the first comment. Let’s open up the conversation: 👉 Have you experienced challenges with authorship in collaborative projects? 👉 Have you ever given away "gift" authorship — or been excluded from a paper you contributed to ("ghost" authorship)? 👉 What practices have you seen work well to ensure fairness and transparency? 💡 If you’re looking for solutions, check out the CRediT taxonomy and our paper in JOM for actionable advice on when and how to discuss and distribute authorship. #IWD2025 #InternationalWomensDay #AuthorshipTransparency #EquityInAcademia #OpenScience #ResearchEthics #WomenInScience #DiversityAndInclusion Lisa M. Rasmussen Scott Tonidandel Jeff Pollack Mary Hausfeld Betsy Albritton Joe Allen Nicolas Bastardoz Andrew Bennett Christopher Castille Bart De Jong Elise Demeter, PhD Justin DeSimone Jamie Field Maria Figueroa-Armijos Gardner William Jeff Gish Laura Giurge Claudia Gonzalez-Brambila M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales, PhD Lorenz Graf-Vlachy Prof. (Dr.) Roopak gupta Amanda Hinojosa Zion Howard Sven Kepes Tine Köhler Dejun "Tony" Kong Markus Langer Liam Patrick Maher, Ph.D. Murad Mithani Lakshmi Balachandran Nair, PhD William (Billy) Obenauer, PhD Ernest O'Boyle Jason Pierce Deborah Powell Roni Reiter-Palmon Srinivasan Tatachari Jane Shumski Thomas Tiia Vissak and more!

"This report developed by UNESCO and in collaboration with the Women for Ethical AI (W4EAI) platform, is based on and inspired by the gender chapter of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This concrete commitment, adopted by 194 Member States, is the first and only recommendation to incorporate provisions to advance gender equality within the AI ecosystem. The primary motivation for this study lies in the realization that, despite progress in technology and AI, women remain significantly underrepresented in its development and leadership, particularly in the field of AI. For instance, currently, women reportedly make up only 29% of researchers in the field of science and development (R&D),1 while this drops to 12% in specific AI research positions.2 Additionally, only 16% of the faculty in universities conducting AI research are women, reflecting a significant lack of diversity in academic and research spaces.3 Moreover, only 30% of professionals in the AI sector are women,4 and the gender gap increases further in leadership roles, with only 18% of in C-Suite positions at AI startups being held by women.5 Another crucial finding of the study is the lack of inclusion of gender perspectives in regulatory frameworks and AI-related policies. Of the 138 countries assessed by the Global Index for Responsible AI, only 24 have frameworks that mention gender aspects, and of these, only 18 make any significant reference to gender issues in relation to AI. Even in these cases, mentions of gender equality are often superficial and do not include concrete plans or resources to address existing inequalities. The study also reveals a concerning lack of genderdisaggregated data in the fields of technology and AI, which hinders accurate measurement of progress and persistent inequalities. It highlights that in many countries, statistics on female participation are based on general STEM or ICT data, which may mask broader disparities in specific fields like AI. For example, there is a reported 44% gender gap in software development roles,6 in contrast to a 15% gap in general ICT professions.7 Furthermore, the report identifies significant risks for women due to bias in, and misuse of, AI systems. Recruitment algorithms, for instance, have shown a tendency to favor male candidates. Additionally, voice and facial recognition systems perform poorly when dealing with female voices and faces, increasing the risk of exclusion and discrimination in accessing services and technologies. Women are also disproportionately likely to be the victims of AI-enabled online harassment. The document also highlights the intersectionality of these issues, pointing out that women with additional marginalized identities (such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability) face even greater barriers to accessing and participating in the AI field."

💡 The importance of sex/gender and age disaggregated data in (biomedical & women's health) research When conducting systematic and scoping reviews, I frequently face the challenge of finding data disaggregated by age and/or sex/gender. Many studies either generalize across both sexes/genders or focus narrowly on women of reproductive age (15-49), often neglecting the distinct health needs of teenage girls, premenopausal, or older women. It's time to acknowledge the critical need to incorporate sex/gender and age considerations into our research. Here is why: - Both sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) factors influence health, disease, and treatment responses. - Age disaggregation is crucial because it enables accurate tracking of health trends across the life course, aids in identifying age-specific risk factors and interventions, and supports more effective health policy planning and program evaluation. - Government/national funding agencies like NIH and the European Commission have begun to implement policies to integrate sex, gender, and, more recently, diversity analysis into the grant proposal process. Integrating sex/gender and age considerations will lead to more rigorous, reproducible, and relevant research - ultimately improving health outcomes for all. Let's discuss how we can drive this important change together. #research #womenshealth #gender

Happy International Women’s Day 💜 A gender gap persists in STEM globally. We’ve made progress, but women are still woefully under-represented. Tackling our greatest challenges - improving health to combating climate change to developing AI as a force for good - must harness all talent. Gender diversity expands and extends the talent pool and is essential as today’s technologies demand different ‘Power’ skills: ▪️Emotional Intelligence: to manage emotions and navigate interpersonal relationships effectively, enhancing teamwork and leadership in STEM ▪️ Collaboration: fostering effective teamwork, with a focus on joint problem-solving ▪️ Adaptability: STEM is moving fast, I see that every day, being able to quickly learn and adjust to is indispensable ▪️ Empathy: drives solutions that truly resonate with human needs ▪️ Creativity: Brings unique perspectives that fuel innovation ▪️ Ethics: development is responsible and beneficial for society However ▫️Women are given smaller research grants and, while 33.3% of all researchers, only 12% of STEM academics are women ▫️In cutting edge fields such as AI, only 1 in five (22%) is a woman ▫️Despite a shortage of skills driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, women still account for only 28% of engineering and 40% of computer science graduates ▫️Female researchers have shorter, less well-paid careers. Their work is underrepresented in high-profile journals and they are more often passed over for promotion ▫️Although STEM fields are widely regarded as critical to economies, so far most countries have not achieved gender equality in STEM So what? Not only is this unethical, unfair it’s also misinformed, I mean stupid: ▪️The crash test dummy is a classic case. Initially, modelled on the average male body. Women were 47% more likely to be seriously injured and 17% to die in car crashes. Despite efforts, the gap in safety due to a lack of diverse testing persists ▪️Cardiovascular research has long been skewed towards men. Women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed with heart attacks and treatment is less effective ▪️Trials for medications did not sufficiently account for gender in pharmacokinetics so dosages were based on male biology, women experience adverse drug reactions nearly 1.7 times more often ▪️Medical devices have focused on male anatomy, for example, women are 20% more likely to have a stroke or die within 30 days of being treated with stents for artery disease ▪️Voice recognition technologies were developed using data from men leading to error rates for women’s voices up to 70% higher ▪️Famously Amazon discovered that its AI-based screening was biased against women favoring male candidates by a significant margin ▪️Facial recognition has error rates of up to 34.7% for dark-skinned women, vs 0.8% for light-skinned men So, should you need it, today is a reminder that women play a critical role in STEMs and that our participation must be strengthened #iwd2024 #BeEqual #GenderEquality #DEI

🧠 Why are women nearly twice as likely to develop #Alzheimer’s disease? A new article in Nature Medicine by science journalist Sofia Moutinho brings together leading researchers—including Roberta Diaz Brinton, Lisa Mosconi, Michelle Mielke, and Justina Avila-Rieger—to explore what we’re finally beginning to understand about sex differences in Alzheimer’s risk. 🔍 A few key insights that stood out from a scientific perspective: Hormonal Shifts & Brain Metabolism As estrogen declines during menopause, the brain loses access to its primary fuel—glucose. Research led by Brinton suggests that in response, female brains shift to metabolizing auxiliary fuels, including lipids found in white matter. This shift may contribute to white matter damage and increased AD vulnerability. Neuroimaging Evidence: Mosconi’s neuroimaging studies show that menopausal women (ages 40–65) have: ▪️ 22% lower brain glucose metabolism ▪️ 11% less white matter ▪️ 30% more β-amyloid plaques compared to age-matched men She notes that Alzheimer’s may begin as a disease of midlife, long before symptoms appear. Metabolic Health & Prevention Windows: Mielke’s and Brinton’s research highlight how postmenopausal metabolic risk factors—like hypertension and insulin resistance—may accelerate cognitive decline. Hormone therapy may help reduce this risk, but outcomes depend heavily on timing, duration, and individual biology. Reproductive History Matters A large Kaiser Permanente study found that women with shorter reproductive spans had 20–31% higher Alzheimer’s risk. Surgical menopause further elevated risk, while having three or more children was associated with lower risk—potentially tied to social support factors later in life. Sexism as a Risk Factor Avila-Rieger’s research revealed that women born in U.S. states with higher structural sexism experienced faster memory decline after age 65—especially Black women, highlighting the role of social determinants. 📉 Despite making up two-thirds of global dementia cases, women have been underrepresented in AD trials and research. That’s slowly beginning to change—but there's still much more work to do. As Mosconi puts it: 🧠 “Research on sex and gender differences in dementia has grown, but there’s still much to uncover ... and we owe women centuries of research.” 📄 Full article posted 👇 🔗 https://lnkd.in/da9p94XR #WomensHealthResearch #Alzheimers #Menopause #Neuroscience #ClinicalResearch #SexDifferences #MidlifeHealth #GSDHealthResearch #DementiaAwareness #DigitalHealth

📣 Old Sci Comm News – with Brand New Results 📣 If you follow the Danish media, you might get the impression that a scientist today is… an old white male. Among the 50 most cited experts in Danish media in 2023, only 5 were women, according to a report by Akademikerbladet. Unfortunately, this reflects the same low representation as in the past four years. 120 years after Marie Curie became the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize, the media still paints a skewed picture of who the “smart” people are in society. Clearly, this is a significant problem. Danish universities are teeming with women, young individuals, and people from around the world (also at professor level), and this diversity should be better reflected in the media’s choice of sources. But wait, there’s more. An often-heard explanation for the gender imbalance is that women are less inclined to engage with the media. However, recent data and experiments with source quotas reveal a different story: 📌 A large-scale study from autumn 2023 indicates that more female researchers than male counterparts believe it’s essential to communicate their knowledge to the wider world (F: 75%; M: 66%). 📌 In 2021, a survey conducted by Deadline, a news magazine on DR, found that female sources were just as willing as their male counterparts to participate in interviews. 📌Akademikerbladet conducted an experiment in March 2023, where they exclusively used female sources. This “disruption” had a ripple effect, leading to a higher proportion of female sources in the following months. So... female researchers are (off course) eager to share their insights, and with conscious effort, the media can alter the representation among sources.   Before we grab our pitchforks and storm the editorial offices, let me add some nuance with fresh data from the autumn 2023 study: 📌Fewer women than men have been interviewed on TV/radio (F: 20%; M: 26%) and for written media (F: 36%; M: 41%). However, the proportion of those contributing in other ways to media content (e.g., background information) is precisely equal for both women and men (43%). 📌More women than men find it challenging to communicate with the broader public (F: 38%; M: 30%), and more women feel unequipped to do so (F: 46%, M: 26%). Perhaps female researchers, more than their male counterparts, don’t feel entirely comfortable with the premises under which fast news media operate? The numerous quotes that propel men to the top of the expert list often stem from rapid news sources, which then get copied or cited in other media—rather than from the more “slow-paced” outlets like Deadline. However, this doesn’t change the fact that media outlets can and should alter their practices. Training and courses can empower researchers to feel more at ease when interacting with news journalists. But it’s the media’s responsibility to create a more equitable representation in the image they paint of researchers.  

BREAKING NEWS: Women are Narrowing the Research Publication Gap Our study was based on 11,097 researchers who authored 7,357 articles in eight journals (2002-2020). Results were replicated across journals and data-analytic approaches (i.e., allometric, time series). Five takeaways: 1️⃣Women’s Publication Growth Outpaces Men’s: Over the past two decades, women’s publication growth rate has surpassed men’s. This trend signifies a narrowing gender publication gap and a positive shift toward equity in academia. 2️⃣Parity Achieved in Microdomains: Gender publication parity has already been achieved for journals in micro-oriented fields (i.e., #HR, #OB), strongly indicating successful gender-focused initiatives in these domains. 3️⃣Challenges in Macrodomains: Gender parity remains elusive in macro-oriented journals. Efforts must be intensified here to ensure broader inclusivity across all academic disciplines. 4️⃣Lead Authorship Milestone: Women now lead more co-authored publications than their field representation. This reflects increasing recognition of their intellectual contributions. 5️⃣Impact of Mentorship and Leadership Representation: Higher mentoring support and leadership representation for women are associated with a faster narrowing of the gender gap. Expanding these efforts can drive further progress.   Get #openaccess article: Aguinis, H., Joo, H., Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Ji, Y. H. 2025. Progress and challenges in narrowing the gender publication gap and parity. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, 44(9): 18-41. https://lnkd.in/etdf_8Bb No time? No problem! Listen to a podcast discussing this article: https://lnkd.in/esZVzyEh AACSB Academy of International Business (AIB) WAIB - Women in the Academy of International Business HR Division - Academy of Management ONE Division, AOM AOM ONE Division Communications Team Administrative Sciences Association of Canada British Academy of Management Eastern Academy of Management AOM ENT Division EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) GW Business Alumni Ellen Granberg Christopher Bracey Iberoamerican Academy of Management International Council for Small Business (ICSB) Management Faculty of Color Association (MFCA) AOM Organizational Behavior Division Società Italiana di Management The George Washington University The George Washington University School of Business The PhD Project The Strategic Management Society Western Academy of Management (Official Site) Quinetta Roberson Marc Gruber Academy of Management Kris Byron Lillian Eby Cynthia E. Devers Rajshree Agarwal Mary Benner Vibha Gaba Brian S. Silverman Eddy Ng

Improving gender diversity in research and publishing has the potential to diversify research questions, research methodology, improve research impact and outcomes for all, and broaden participation in research and publishing.  And that is why we set out to understand gender in the context of publishing in our journals. I am pleased to share our latest report, Closing the Gender Gap: Peer Review at Nature Portfolio, where we set out to understand what gender representation looks like among corresponding authors and peer reviewers through the publication process across Nature, Nature research journals, Nature Reviews journals, Nature Communications, Communications Series journals, and npj Series journals.     Highlights below:   - Women represent 18% of submitting corresponding authors of original research articles across the journals analyzed; the proportion increases to 22-23% in more inclusive journals. The gender gap is consistent with what has reported for other selective journals.  - A higher percentage of women are submitting corresponding authors in psychology (33%), medicine & public health (23%), and life sciences journals (22%) - this trend tracks with the relatively higher proportion of women researchers in these fields.  - There is no evidence of negative gender bias in the editorial or peer review process. - Proactive editorial efforts contribute to improving representation of women in editorially commissioned works, and as peer reviewers.   Women constitute 34% of corresponding authors globally (according to the SHE Figures 2024 report), with regional variation.  Across disciplines and regions, we know from multiple benchmarking reports that the gender gap widens with seniority, but the gap is considerably narrower in cohorts of early career and mid-career stage researchers.  So, if we are going to narrow the gender gap in research publishing, engaging with researchers earlier in their research journey is vital.  We know, for example, that engaging early career researchers in co-review initiatives at Nature Portfolio journals boosts gender diversity. While we are encouraged that editorial strategies are having a positive impact, addressing the gender gap will need change across the ecosystem to reinforce publisher efforts to make publishing more representative of the research community. Read the report here: https://lnkd.in/g4m_Dzuk Find out more in our blogpost here: https://lnkd.in/g7UDJqA7