Gender-Heterogeneous Working Groups Produce Higher Quality Science

Here we present the first empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that a gender-heterogeneous problem-solving team generally produced journal articles perceived to be higher quality by peers than a team comprised of highly-performing individuals of the same gender. Although women were historica...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 8; no. 10; p. e79147
Main Authors Campbell, Lesley G., Mehtani, Siya, Dozier, Mary E., Rinehart, Janice
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 30.10.2013
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Here we present the first empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that a gender-heterogeneous problem-solving team generally produced journal articles perceived to be higher quality by peers than a team comprised of highly-performing individuals of the same gender. Although women were historically underrepresented as principal investigators of working groups, their frequency as PIs at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis is now comparable to the national frequencies in biology and they are now equally qualified, in terms of their impact on the accumulation of ecological knowledge (as measured by the h-index). While women continue to be underrepresented as working group participants, peer-reviewed publications with gender-heterogeneous authorship teams received 34% more citations than publications produced by gender-uniform authorship teams. This suggests that peers citing these publications perceive publications that also happen to have gender-heterogeneous authorship teams as higher quality than publications with gender uniform authorship teams. Promoting diversity not only promotes representation and fairness but may lead to higher quality science.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Conceived and designed the experiments: LGC SM. Performed the experiments: LGC SM MED. Analyzed the data: LGC SM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LGC JR. Wrote the paper: LGC SM MED JR.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0079147