January 20th, 2009


(no subject)

выношу из комментов. простите, что по-английски. если совсем плохо читается и при этом кому-то интересно, могу перевести потом - пожалуйста, напишите в комменты или в личку.
вообще это краткий пересказ статьи в Nature (боюсь, чтобы открыть файл, нужна подписка), показывающей явную дискриминацию при оценке женщин-ученых. чтобы получить такую же оценку, как мужчина, женщина должна опубликовать 3 статьи в Nature или Science (самые престижные естественно-научные журналы, в них очень сложно опубликоваться, уже одна статья там - очень круто), или 20 статей в топовых специализированных научных журналах.

библ. ссылка: Wennerås, C. & Wold, A. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review" Nature 387, 341–343 (1997).

The authors studied the review scores made during an appraisal of candidates for postdoctoral biomedical positions in Sweden. Each reviewer, given a candidate's CV, bibliography, and research proposal, gave three scores: one for overall scientific competence, one for the quality of the proposed methodology, and one for the relevance of the proposal.

Take a look at this picture. The competence score is the one given by reviewers, and the scientific productivity measure corresponds for the publications by the candidate adjusted for the impact factor of the journal. Adjustment is simple: for every paper of the author, 1 is multiplied with the impact paper of the journal.

The picture speaks for itself; the authors note that in order to get the same competence score, a woman had to have three more papers in Science or Nature than a man, or 20 more papers in journals with impact factors around 3.

The authors controlled for candidates' nationality, the kind of educational background (medical vs. nursing vs. science), scientific fields, university affiliation and having postdoctoral experience abroad. None of that mattered. (There were other factors that mattered, though, namely, people affiliated with a committee member received a huge bonus in scores, of roughly the same size that males received just for being males. So it is not that only gender discrimination was found to be a problem.)