التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Faulty evidence, specious logic, dangerous conclusions: Challenging gendered ideas of mentorship |
| المؤلفون: |
Alexander, Robert G., Alexander, Katherine, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Jena, Finkelstein, Stacey, Lee, Seungyeon, Litchman, Michelle L., Nigg, Claudio R., Ross, Kathryn M., Starr, Lisa R., Xu, Xiaomeng |
| بيانات النشر: |
Center for Open Science |
| سنة النشر: |
2020 |
| الوصف: |
In their Nature Communications paper, AlShebli et al. showed that women scientists face under-citation relative to men, and that this effect was compounded when multiple women co-authored manuscripts together. None of this is surprising; it is consistent with a wide body of research documenting pernicious systematic and structural gender biases. What is shocking is their conclusion that women students should avoid female mentors and vice versa so they may benefit, by proxy, from male privilege. They further suggest policy makers revisit the consequences of diversity policies and take this conclusion into account. The corrosive effects of this advice would only serve to exacerbate gender differences in science. Worse still, the study is so replete with flaws that their conclusions are as unmerited as they are offensive. Here, we discuss several of these significant flaws. |
| نوع الوثيقة: |
other/unknown material |
| اللغة: |
unknown |
| DOI: |
10.31219/osf.io/zqtky |
| الإتاحة: |
https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/zqtkyTest |
| حقوق: |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcodeTest |
| رقم الانضمام: |
edsbas.4A2EF8A8 |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
BASE |
