The gender gap in scientific research in the field of communication in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26441/RC25.2-2026-4538Keywords:
Gender Gap, Communication, Scientific Research, Spain, Matilda effectAbstract
Purpose. Over the decades, the field of communication has consolidated as a scientific discipline, fostering notable gender parity among researchers at a quantitative level, but not at a qualitative one. The primary objective of this research is to comprehensively analyse gender participation and inequalities in communication research in Spain across five decades. Methodology. To achieve this objective, gender participation in communication research in Spain was analysed based on 15,479 articles indexed in Scopus between 1968 and 2025. Results and conclusions. The findings indicate that the field has attained a remarkable level of quantitative parity, with a balanced distribution of male and female authors, in contrast to other disciplines. However, despite this parity, subtle qualitative inequalities persist. Women are underrepresented at the highest productivity levels and occupy more peripheral positions in academic leadership networks, reflecting the Matilda Effect. Collaboration patterns exhibit a slight trend toward gender homophily, with women participating less frequently in networks that enhance productivity and visibility. Original contribution. These findings highlight the need to move beyond strategies focused solely on quantitative inclusion and implement measures that address the structural dynamics of academic networks and institutional contexts shaping participation. Numerical parity is a necessary, yet insufficient, condition for gender equality in science.
Downloads
References
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7-8), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2001.002988
Bunker Whittington, K., King, M. M., & Cingolani, I. (2024). Structure, status, and span: Gender differences in co-authorship networks across 16 region-subject pairs (2009–2013). Scientometrics, 129(1), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04885-1
Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 627–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00701.x
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003
Carrasco-Campos, Á., & Saperas, E. (2022). Los marcos teóricos en cinco revistas españolas de referencia sobre comunicación (2011-2021): Entre la centralidad y la dispersión teórica. Communication & Society, 35(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.35.2.155-168
Codina Bonilla, L., Morales-Vargas, A., Rodríguez-Martínez, R., & Pérez-Montoro, M. (2020). Uso de Scopus y Web of Science para investigar y evaluar en comunicación social: Análisis comparativo y caracterización. Index.comunicación: Revista Científica en el Ámbito de la Comunicación Aplicada, 10(3), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/10/03usodes
Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Advances in motivation and achievements. En M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Women in science (pp. 217–256). JAI Press.
DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127
European Commission. (2021). She figures 2021: Gender in research and innovation: Statistics and indicators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090
European Commission. (2024). She figures 2024: Gender in research and innovation: Statistics and indicators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/934401
Fernández-Quijada, D., & Masip, P. (2013). Tres décadas de investigación española en comunicación: Hacia la mayoría de edad. Comunicar, 21(41), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-01
de Filippo, D. (2013). La producción científica española en Comunicación en WOS: las revistas indexadas en SSCI (2007-12). Comunicar, 21(41), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-02
Fox, M. F. (2020). Gender, science and academic rank: Key issues and approaches. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057
Freelon, D., Pruden, M. L., Eddy, K. A., & Kuo, R. (2023). Inequities of race, place, and gender among the communication citation elite, 2000-2019. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad002
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
García-Dauder, D., & Pérez-Sedeño, E. (2017). Las “mentiras” científicas sobre las mujeres. Los Libros de la Catarata.
García-Jiménez, L., Torrado-Morales, S., & Díaz, J. (2022). El rol de la mujer en la ciencia y la docencia en comunicación: Análisis a partir de los programas universitarios en España. Revista de Comunicación, 21(2), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC21.2-2022-A5
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688
Goyanes, M., De-Marcos, L., Demeter, M., Toth, T., & Jordá, B. (2022). Editorial board interlocking across the social sciences: Modelling the geographic, gender, and institutional representation within and between six academic fields. PLOS ONE, 17(9), Article e0273552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273552
Goyanes, M., Herrero, E., & De-Marcos, L. (2024). Gender differences in representation, citation, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries. PLOS ONE, 19(11), Article e0312731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312731
Goyanes, M., Tóth, T., & Háló, G. (2024). Gender differences in Google Scholar representation and impact: An empirical analysis of political communication, journalism, health communication, and media psychology. Scientometrics, 129(3), 1719–1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04945-0
Gregorio-Chaviano, O., López-Mesa, E. K., & Peralta-González, M. J. (2023). Evaluación bibliométrica de la investigación en Comunicación en Colombia a partir de Scopus (2011-2021). Palabra Clave, 26(3), Artículo e2634. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2023.23.3.4
Hartley, J. (2012). Digital futures for cultural and media studies. Wiley-Blackwell.
Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology, 16(4), Article e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2011). The Matilda effect – Role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418339
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity, and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0369-y
Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293030
Ley, T. J., & Hamilton, B. H. (2008). The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science, 322(5907), 1472–1474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165878
Martínez-Nicolás, M. (2009). La investigación sobre comunicación en España: Evolución histórica y retos actuales. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4185/10.4185/RLCS-64-2009-800-01-14
Martínez-Nicolás, M., Saperas, E., & Humanes, M. L. (2019). Mudanzas en la cultura científica: El nuevo contexto de la práctica investigadora sobre comunicación y sus implicaciones epistemológicas. En F. Sierra & J. Alberich (Eds.), Epistemología de la comunicación y cultura digital: Retos emergentes (pp. 23–42). Universidad de Granada.
Mauleóns, E., & Bordons, M. (2006). Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of materials science. Scientometrics, 66, 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0014-3
Matias-Rayme, N., Botezan, I., Suárez-Figueroa, M. C., & Sánchez-Jiménez, R. (2024). Gender assignment in doctoral theses: Revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory. Scientometrics, 129(7), 4553–4572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Moore, K., Cid-Martinez, I., Toney, J., Smith, J. A., Kalb, A. C., Shin, J. H., & Spalter-Roth, R. M. (2018). Who climbs the academic ladder? Race and gender stratification in a world of whiteness. The Review of Black Political Economy, 45(3), 216–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034644618813667
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Bornmann, L., & Moed, H. F. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: A promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97(2), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1046-0
Newman, M. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103
Nielsen, M. W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Joshi, A., Leahey, E., Smith-Doerr, L., Woolley, A. W., & Schiebinger, L. (2017). Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1740–1742. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700616114
Pell, A. N. (1996). Fixing the leaky pipeline: Women scientists in academia. Journal of Animal Science, 74(11), 2843–2848. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x
Pezzoni, M., Sterzi, V., & Lissoni, F. (2012). Career progress in centralized academic systems: Social capital and institutions in France and Italy. Research Policy, 41(4), 704–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.009
Pooley, J., & Socolow, M. (2013). Checking up on The Invasion from Mars: Hadley Cantril, Paul Lazarsfeld, and the making of a misremembered classic. International Journal of Communication, 7, 1920–1948.
Rajkó, A., Herendy, C., Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2025). The Matilda effect in communication research: The effects of gender and geography on usage and citations across 11 countries. Communication Research, 52(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124389
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004
Sá, C., Cowley, S., Martinez, M., Kachynska, N., & Sabzalieva, E. (2020). Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa. PLOS ONE, 15(10), Article e0240903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240903
Sánchez-Jiménez, R., Botezan, I., Barrasa-Rodríguez, J., Suárez-Figueroa, M. C., & Blázquez-Ochando, M. (2023). Gender imbalance in doctoral education: An analysis of the Spanish university system (1977–2021). Scientometrics, 128(4), 2577–2599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04648-y
Sánchez-Jiménez, R., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2017). The role of guarantor in scientific collaboration: The neighbourhood matters. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.004
Sánchez-Jiménez, R., Guerrero-Castillo, P., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Halevi, G., & De-Moya-Anegón, F. (2024). Analysis of the distribution of authorship by gender in scientific output: A global perspective. Journal of Informetrics, 18(3), Article 101556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101556
Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/495022a
Shi, W., & Wu, R. (2024). Women’s strength in science: Exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation. Scientometrics, 129(7), 4529–4551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05089-x
Sonnet, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Gender Differences in Science careers: The Project Access Study. Rutgers University Press.
Spoon, K., LaBerge, N., Wapman, K. H., Zhang, S., Morgan, A. C., Galesic, M., Fosdick, B. K., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. (2023). Gender and retention patterns among US faculty. Science Advances, 9(42), Article eadi2205. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205
Van Buskirk, I., Clauset, A., & Larremore, D. B. (2023). An open-source cultural consensus approach to name-based gender classification. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 17, 866–877. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22195
Wang, X., Dworkin, J., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E., Bassett, D., Zurn, P., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE, 8(7), Article e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657505
Yang, A. J., & Deng, S. (2024). Dynamic patterns of the disruptive and consolidating knowledge flows in Nobel-winning scientific breakthroughs. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00323
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Copyright 2026 Journal of Communication and the authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Revista de Comunicación retains the copyright to published works under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License and allows the author to maintain these rights without restriction.
This journal and its articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows users to: share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium or format, provided that they: give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; do not use our content for commercial purposes; and/or remix or transform the material.
Portal de Revistas de la Universidad de Piura.