Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Citational politics: Quantifying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities

Earhart, Amy E, Risam, Roopika, Bruno, Matthew·2021·Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DOI 10.1093/llc/fqaa011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Using citation analysis, we consider the role of gender in citation practices in conference special issues of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Our examination of citations in Digital Humanities conference special issues from 2006 to 2015 demonstrates gender bias in citational practices. This bias is consistent with broader trends in citational politics across the academy more broadly but is a threat to equity and justice within the scholarly community. We further offer proposals for improving citational practices to resist gender bias. Quantifying the impact of gender on citations, we argue, is one approach to understanding gender inequalities within digital humanities communities and to generating solutions to promote the broadest representation of digital humanities scholarship in scholarly communications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/llc/fqaa011

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Atchinson, 2017, Negating the gender advantage in political science, PS: Political Science and Politics, 50, 448
  2. Brown, 2017, Identifying early modern books: challenges for citation practices in book history and early modern studies, Archive Journal
  3. Clement, 2008, ‘A thing not beginning and not ending’: using digital tools to distant-read Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23, 361, 10.1093/llc/fqn020 · DOI
  4. Cronin, 2014, Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, 10.7551/mitpress/9445.001.0001 · DOI
  5. Cronin, 2015, Scholarly Metrics under the Microscope: Citation Analysis and Academic Auditing
  6. Crymble, 2013, FairCite, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 7
  7. Dion, 2018, Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields, Political Analysis, 26, 312, 10.1017/pan.2018.12 · DOI
  8. Earhart, 2015, Traces of the Old, Uses of the New: The Emergence of the Digital Literary Studies, 10.2307/j.ctv65swvf · DOI
  9. Eichmann-Kalwara, 2018, Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities, 72
  10. Ferber, 1988, Citations and networking, Gender & Society, 2, 82–9, 10.1177/089124388002001006 · DOI
  11. Ferber, 1986, Citations: are they an objective measure of scholarly merit?, Signs, 11, 381, 10.1086/494230 · DOI
  12. Hackanson, 2015, The impact of gender on citations: an analysis of college & research libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly, College and Research Libraries, 66, 312, 10.5860/crl.66.4.312 · DOI
  13. Jewell, 2012, The Willa Cather Archive
  14. Larivière, 2013, Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science, Nature, 504, 211, 10.1038/504211a · DOI
  15. Leydesdorff, 2010, Maps on the basis of the arts & humanities citation index: the journals Leonardo and Art Journal Versus ‘Digital Humanities’ as a topic, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61, 639
  16. Martin, 2016, Digital humanities, digital hegemony: exploring funding practices and unequal access in the digital humanities, SIGCAS Computers and Society, 46, 20, 10.1145/2908216.2908219 · DOI
  17. Macaluso, 2016, Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender differences in contributorship, Academic Medicine, 91, 1136, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001261 · DOI
  18. McCarty, 2014, Getting there from here: remembering the future of Digital Humanities, Robert Busa Award Lecture of 2013, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29, 283, 10.1093/llc/fqu022 · DOI
  19. Moss-Racusin, 2012, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474, 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Nyhan, 2014, Joint and multiple-authored publication patterns in the digital humanities, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29, 387, 10.1093/llc/fqu018 · DOI
  21. Pearse, 2019, Gender, inter/disciplinarity and marginality in the social sciences and humanities: a comparison of six disciplines, Women’s Studies International Forum, 72, 109, 10.1016/j.wsif.2018.05.007 · DOI
  22. Price, 1963, Big Science
  23. Price, 1986, Little Science, Big Science … and Beyond
  24. Quan-Haase, 2015, Networks of digital humanities scholars: the Informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter, Big Data & Society, 1, 10.1177/2053951715589417 · DOI
  25. Risam, 2016, Diasporizing the digital humanities: displacing the center and periphery, International Journal of E-Politics, 7, 65, 10.4018/IJEP.2016070105 · DOI
  26. Risam, 2018, New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy, 10.2307/j.ctv7tq4hg · DOI
  27. Romanello, 2016, Exploring citation networks to study intertextuality in classics, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 10
  28. Sula, 2012, Visualizing social connections in the humanities: beyond bibliometrics, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38, 31, 10.1002/bult.2012.1720380409 · DOI
  29. Sula, 2014, Citations, contexts, and humanistic discourse: toward automatic extraction and classification, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29, 452, 10.1093/llc/fqu019 · DOI
  30. Slyder, 2011, Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual, Scientometrics, 89, 955, 10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x · DOI
  31. Terras, 2006, Disciplined: using educational studies to analyse ‘humanities computing’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21, 229, 10.1093/llc/fql022 · DOI
  32. Weingart, 2017, What’s under the big tent?: a study of ADHO conference abstracts, Digital Studies/Le champ numérique, 7, 10.16995/dscn.284 · DOI
  33. West, 2013, The role of gender in scholarly authorship, PLoS ONE, 8, e66212, 10.1371/journal.pone.0066212 · DOI

Cited by

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Earhart, A. E., Risam, R., & Bruno, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of English, Texas A&M University, USA
  • Departments of Secondary and Higher Education and English, Salem State University, USA
  • Department of English, Salem State University, USA
ORCID
Risam, Roopika
Venue
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-08-03
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
581-594
ISSN
  • 2055-7671
  • 2055-768X
DOI
10.1093/llc/fqaa011
Cited by
11
References
1
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)

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

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.