Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,798

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Academy of Management Journal

·2013·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper examines the gender gap in the likelihood that academic scientists join corporate scientific advisory boards (SABs). We assess (i) demand-side theories that relate the gap in scientists ’ rate of joining SABs to the opportunity structure of SAB invitations, and (ii) supply-side explanations that attribute the gap to scientists ’ preferences for work of this type. We statistically examine the demand- and supply-side perspectives in a national sample of 6,000 life scientists whose careers span more than 30 years. Holding constant professional achievement, network ties, employer characteristics and research foci, male scientists are almost twice as likely as females to serve on the SABs of biotechnology companies. We do not find evidence in our data supporting a choice-based explanation for the gender gap. Instead, demand-side theoretical perspectives focusing on gender-stereotyped perceptions and the unequal opportunities embedded in social networks appear to explain some of the gender gap. Page 1 of 41

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 · 10.5465/amj

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.

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

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

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2013-11-18
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj
OpenAlex
W4238183346
Cited by
4,798
References
0
Type
paratext
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

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.