Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18129v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 04:22:50 GMT
• Title: Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards
• Authors: HaeJin Lee, Shubhanshu Mishra, Apratim Mishra, Zhiwen You, Jinseok Kim, Jana Diesner,
• Abstract summary: We propose the development and implementation of Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards. These cards will provide a structured framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis.
• Score: 4.7078204693473795
• License:
• Abstract: Gender biases in scholarly metrics remain a persistent concern, despite numerous bibliometric studies exploring their presence and absence across productivity, impact, acknowledgment, and self-citations. However, methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies, potentially perpetuating misperceptions and hindering effective interventions. A review of 70 relevant publications over the past 12 years reveals a wide range of approaches, from name-based and manual searches to more algorithmic and gold-standard methods, with no clear consensus on best practices. This variability, compounded by challenges such as accurately disambiguating Asian names and managing unassigned gender labels, underscores the urgent need for standardized and robust methodologies. To address this critical gap, we propose the development and implementation of ``Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards." These cards will provide a structured framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, SoDA Cards will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings, ultimately supporting evidence-informed policymaking and enabling the longitudinal tracking of analytical approaches in the study of gender and other social biases in academia.

Related papers

• exHarmony: Authorship and Citations for Benchmarking the Reviewer Assignment Problem [11.763640675057076]
  We develop a benchmark dataset for evaluating the reviewer assignment problem without needing explicit labels. We benchmark various methods, including traditional lexical matching, static neural embeddings, and contextualized neural embeddings. Our results indicate that while traditional methods perform reasonably well, contextualized embeddings trained on scholarly literature show the best performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T16:35:04Z)
• Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory [0.0]
  This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts. The research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T15:22:01Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Protocol Towards Fair and Consistent Affect Analysis [24.737468736951374]
  The increasing integration of machine learning algorithms in daily life underscores the critical need for fairness and equity in their deployment. Existing databases and methodologies lack uniformity, leading to biased evaluations. This work addresses these issues by analyzing six affective databases, annotating demographic attributes, and proposing a common protocol for database partitioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T22:40:01Z)
• Too Good To Be True: performance overestimation in (re)current practices for Human Activity Recognition [49.1574468325115]
  sliding windows for data segmentation followed by standard random k-fold cross validation produce biased results. It is important to raise awareness in the scientific community about this problem, whose negative effects are being overlooked. Several experiments with different types of datasets and different types of classification models allow us to exhibit the problem and show it persists independently of the method or dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T13:24:05Z)
• Inferring gender from name: a large scale performance evaluation study [4.934579134540613]
  Researchers need to infer gender from readily available information, primarily from persons' names. Name-to-gender inference has generated an ever-growing domain of algorithmic approaches and software products. We conduct a large scale performance evaluation of existing approaches for name-to-gender inference. We propose two new hybrid approaches that achieve better performance than any single existing approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T13:38:45Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)
• Robust Quantification of Gender Disparity in Pre-Modern English Literature using Natural Language Processing [8.185725740857594]
  We demonstrate the significant discrepancy between the prevalence of female characters and male characters in pre-modern literature. The discrepancy seems to be relatively stable as we plot data over the decades in this century-long period. We aim to carefully describe both the limitations and ethical caveats associated with this study, and others like it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T15:11:22Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Far [68.45921483094705]
  Data-driven algorithms are studied in diverse domains to support critical decisions, directly impacting people's well-being. A growing community of researchers has been investigating the equity of existing algorithms and proposing novel ones, advancing the understanding of risks and opportunities of automated decision-making for historically disadvantaged populations. Progress in fair Machine Learning hinges on data, which can be appropriately used only if adequately documented. Unfortunately, the algorithmic fairness community suffers from a collective data documentation debt caused by a lack of information on specific resources (opacity) and scatteredness of available information (sparsity)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T17:25:46Z)
• Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
  Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)
• Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms [54.19499274513654]
  We develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic transects'' of matched sample images. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T17:10:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.