Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007
Published 2013 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007
Authors
Keywords
Nano science, Nano technology, Gender, Scientific productivity, Impact
Journal
SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 98, Issue 1, Pages 457-472
Publisher
Springer Nature
Online
2013-05-16
DOI
10.1007/s11192-013-1031-7
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology
- (2013) Fereshteh Didegah et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Participation of women in software engineering publications
- (2012) Belén Vela et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Research evaluation. Part II: gender effects of evaluation: are men more productive and more cited than women?
- (2012) Kretschmer Hildrun et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Gender bias in journals of gender studies
- (2012) Hildrun Kretschmer et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?
- (2012) Pleun van Arensbergen et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Career prospects for female university researchers have not improved
- (2012) Rickard Danell et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists
- (2011) Dag W. Aksnes et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
- (2011) S. J. Ceci et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible?
- (2011) Grant Lewison et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual
- (2011) Jacob B. Slyder et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors
- (2011) Vincent Larivière et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Longitudinal and cross-sectional study of registered nurses in Sweden who undertake a PhD showing that nurses continue to publish in English after their PhD but male nurses are more productive than female nurses
- (2010) Lars H. Breimer et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- A longitudinal and cross-sectional study of Swedish biomedical PhD processes 1991–2009 with emphasis on international and gender aspects
- (2010) Lars H. Breimer et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Is there a ‘gender gap’ in authorship of the main Brazilian psychiatric journals at the beginning of the 21st century?
- (2010) Mauro Vitor Mendlowicz et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?
- (2010) Giovanni Abramo et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Visibility and responsibility of women in research papers through the order of signatures: the case of the University of Extremadura, 1990–2005
- (2009) Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity
- (2009) Giovanni Abramo et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Brazilian computer science research: Gender and regional distributions
- (2009) Denis Arruda et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system
- (2009) Giovanni Abramo et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Male and female involvement in patenting activity in Spain
- (2009) Elba Mauleón et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
- Iranian women in science: a gender study of scientific productivity in an Islamic country
- (2008) Mehrnoush Mozaffarian et al. ASLIB PROCEEDINGS
- PhD theses in Spain: A gender study covering the years 1990–2004
- (2008) Anna Villarroya et al. SCIENTOMETRICS
Become a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get StartedAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started