# The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.01002 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.01002/

## Key facts

- Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [NeuroGen: activation optimized image synthesis for discovery neuroscience](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.07140/) (2021)
- [Personalized visual encoding model construction with small data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.02245/) (2022)
- [Information decomposition in complex systems via machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04755/) (2023)
- [Interpretability with full complexity by constraining feature information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.17264/) (2022)
- [Nonbacktracking spectral clustering of nonuniform hypergraphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.13586/) (2022)
- [Machine-learning optimized measurements of chaotic dynamical systems via the information bottleneck](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04896/) (2023)
- [Nothing makes sense in deep learning, except in the light of evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10320/) (2022)
- [Gender inference: can chatGPT outperform common commercial tools?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00805/) (2023)
- [Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.13665/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Temporal Patterns in Applied Infant Affect Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.03496/) (2022)
- [For the Misgendered Chinese in Gender Bias Research: Multi-Task Learning with Knowledge Distillation for Pinyin Name-Gender Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06221/) (2024)
- [Surveying the space of descriptions of a composite system with machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.18579/) (2024)
- [War in the Abstract: The Rise and Consequences of Militarized Language in Scientific Communication](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23462/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Like many scientific disciplines, neuroscience has increasingly attempted to confront pervasive gender imbalances within the field. While much of the conversation has centered around publishing and conference participation, recent research in other fields has called attention to the prevalence of gender bias in citation practices. Because of the downstream effects that citations can have on visibility and career advancement, understanding and eliminating gender bias in citation practices is vital for addressing inequity in a scientific community. In this study, we sought to determine whether there is evidence of gender bias in the citation practices of neuroscientists. Using data from five top neuroscience journals, we find that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender were not a factor in referencing. Importantly, we show that this overcitation of men and undercitation of women is driven largely by the citation practices of men, and is increasing over time as the field becomes more diverse. We develop a co-authorship network to assess homophily in researchers' social networks, and we find that men tend to overcite men even when their social networks are representative. We discuss possible mechanisms and consider how individual researchers might address these findings in their own practices.