The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder
Abstract
Significance: Ever-growing empirical evidence documents a gender bias against women and their research—and favoring men—in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Our research examined how receptive the scientific and public communities are to experimental evidence demonstrating this gender bias, which may contribute to women’s underrepresentation within STEM. Results from our three experiments, using general-public and university faculty samples, demonstrated that men evaluate the quality of research unveiling this bias as less meritorious than do women. These findings may inform and fuel self-correction efforts within STEM to reduce gender bias, bolster objectivity and diversity in STEM workforces, and enhance discovery, education, and achievement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682
Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components
Devine, P. G. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 · Cited by 5,673
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101 · Cited by 2,103
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 · Cited by 1,845
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108 · Cited by 1,114
Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
Mahoney, M. J. (1977) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173636 · Cited by 1,013
Cited by
Gender bias in scholarly peer review
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.21718 · Cited by 380
The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017
Blackburn, H. (2017) · Science & Technology Libraries · doi:10.1080/0194262x.2017.1371658 · Cited by 353
Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science
Teele, D. L., & Thelen, K. (2017) · Political Science and Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096516002985 · Cited by 282
Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017) · Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/2378023117738903 · Cited by 275
The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM
Cech, E. A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo1558 · Cited by 159
Metadata
- Authors
- Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-10-12
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 43
- Pages
- 13201-13206
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2169557639
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 65.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1510649112
- The paper
- Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
