bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.06.21.449261

Analysis of scientific journalism in Nature reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Davidson, N. R.·Greene, C. S.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the publics view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Davidson, N. R., Greene, C. S.. 2021-06-22. Analysis of scientific journalism in Nature reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.21.449261

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

Using a decision tree to predict COVID case numbers: a tutorial for beginners

This manuscript describes the development of a module that is part of a learning platform named "NIGMS Sandbox for Cloud-based Learning" https://github.com/NIGMS/NIGMS-Sandbox. The overall genesis of the Sandbox is described in the editorial NIGMS Sandbox at the beginning of this Supplement. This module delivers learning materials on machine learning and decision tree concepts in an interactive format that uses appropriate cloud resources for data access and analyses. Machine learning (ML) is an important tool in biomedical research and can lead to improvements in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases. During the COVID pandemic ML was used for predictions at the patient and community levels. Given its ubiquity, it is important that future doctors, researchers and teachers get acquainted with ML and its contributions to research. Our goal is to make it easier for everyone to learn about machine learning. The learning module we present here is based on a small COVID dataset, videos, annotated code and the use of Google Colab or the Google Cloud Platform (GCP). The benefit of these platforms is that students do not have to set up a programming environment on their computer which saves time and is also an important democratization factor. The module focuses on learning the basics of decision trees by applying them to COVID data. It introduces basic terminology used in supervised machine learning and its relevance to research. Our experience with biology students at San Francisco State University suggests that the material increases interest in ML.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But, do awards incentivise greater transparency, diversity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions are brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups are not explicitly encouraged and concepts that align with Open Science are almost absent from the assessment criteria. Instead, such awards increasingly rely on article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winners pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one-percent of individual winners were men. Thus, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.

scientific communication and education↗