Evaluating the research performance of women scientists in Indian research laboratories based on Scopus citation database: A bibliometric analysis

Main Article Content

Bhaskar Mukherjee


This study examines the contributions of women scientists currently working in various research organizations under the Ministry of Science and Technology, India. Women scientists were identified through the official websites of the research laboratories and their publication performance has been tracked using the Scopus database. There are 901 women scientists working in 78 research organizations under the Ministry and have published 21810 publications up to December 2019, almost 65 percent of which has been appeared during 2010 to 2019. The publication per scientist has risen from 6.85 article per year before 2000 to 10.45 paper in 2015-2019 which indicates increasing participation of women in science from India. Women scientists are primarily engaged in biological sciencesresearch, however fields such as materials sciences, nano-technology, and astrophysics are also becoming the preferred subject choices among women. Women scientists mostly published their articles as a member of a team of utmost 10 authors, however, their position in multi-authored articles is mostly as co-authors than that of principal authors. Women in the age group ofbetween31 to 40 produced maximum publications, and almost 98 percent of publications appeared in collaboration with other scientists.This study confirms that publication productivity does not decline with age. There are women scientists who stay active in research and keep their productivity at a high level until their retirement. The study suggests that the increasing participation of women in Indian science is encouraging, as such more funding opportunities to younger women researchers may be important to give them more lead time to build a strong career.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mukherjee, B. (2022). Evaluating the research performance of women scientists in Indian research laboratories based on Scopus citation database: A bibliometric analysis. Malaysian Journal of Library &Amp; Information Science, 27(1), 57–72. Retrieved from https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/28295


Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. and Caprasecca, A. 2009. Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, Vol.79, no.3: 517-539

Adamo, S.A. 2013. Attrition of women in the biological sciences: workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited. BioScience, Vol. 63, no. 1: 43-48. Available at: doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.9.

Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. 2002. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, Vol. 48, no. 1: 44-60. Available at: doi: 10.1287/mnsc.

Barjak, F. 2006. Research productivity in the internet era. Scientometrics, Vol. 68, no. 3: 343-360. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0116-y.

Bart, C. and McQueen, G. 2013. Why women make better directors. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 8, no. 1: 93–99. Available at: doi: 10.1504/IJBGE.2013.052743.

Bendels, M.H.K.; Bauer, J.; Schöffel, N. and Groneberg, D.A. 2018.The gender gap in schizophrenia research.Schizophrenia Research, Vol. 193: 445-446. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2017.06.019.

Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G.H., Kulkarni, A.V., Devereaux, P.J., Leece, P., Bajammal, S., Heels-Ansdell, D. and Busse, J.W. 2014. Perceptions of authors' contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67, no. 9: 1049-1054. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.006.

Bird, K.S. 2011. Do women publish fewer journal articles than men? Sex differences in publication productivity in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.32, no.6: 921-937.10.1080/01425692.2011.596387

Britton, D.M. 2017. Beyond the chilly climate: the salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society, Vol. 31, no. 1: 5-27. Available at: doi: 10.1177/0891243216681494.

Caplar, N., Tacchella, S. and Birrer, S. 2016. Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nature Astronomy, Vol.1, no.6: 1-5.

Clement, T.P. 2014. Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 20, no. 2: 345-361. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3.

Costas, R. and Bordons, M. 2011. Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, Vol. 88, no. 1: 145-161. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z.

Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR). 2017. Classification of posts.Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt. of India. Available at: https://www.csir.res.in/document/classification-posts.

Duch, J., Zeng, X.H.T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T.K. and Nunes Amaral, L.A. 2012. The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLOS ONE, Vol.7, no.12.

Garg, K.C. and Kumar, S. 2014. Scientometric profile of Indian scientific output in life sciences with a focus on the contributions of women scientists. Scientometrics, Vol. 98, no. 3: 1771–1783. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1107-4.

Godbole, R.M. and Ramaswamy, R. 2015. Women scientists in India.In: Report on Women in Science and Technology in Asia, 11th AASSA (Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia) Regional Workshop on ‘Gender issues in science research and education’, Gender Summit 6 – Asia Pacific 2015. Annex India 03:67-84. AASSA: Panmun Education. Available at: https://nassl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AASSA_Report_Women_in_S_T_in_Asia.pdf.

Göktepe-Hulten, D. and Mahagaonkar, P. 2010. Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 35: 401–423. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s10961-009-9126-2.

Gupta, N. and Sharma, A.K. 2002.Women academic scientists in India. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, no. 5-6: 901-915. Available at: doi: 10.1177/030631270203200505.

Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D. and Hauser, C.E. 2018. The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology, Vol. 16, no. 4: e2004956. Available at: doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.

Husemann, M., Rogers, R., Meyer, S. and Habel, J.C. 2017. “Publicationism” and scientists’ satisfaction depend on gender, career stage and the wider academic system. Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3, no. 1: 17032. Available at: doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.32.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2007. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated October 2007. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/.

Jensen, K. and Murray, F. 2005. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science, Vol. 310, no. 5746: 239-240. Available at: doi: 10.1126/science.1120014.

Kartz, J.S. and Martin, B. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy, Vol. 26, no. 1: 1-18. Available at: doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.

King, M.M., Bergstrom, C.T., Correll, S.J., Jacquet, J. and West, J.D. 2017. Men set their own cites high: gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, Vol. 3. Available at: doi:10.1177/2378023117738903.

Kretschmer, H. and Kretschmer, T. 2013. Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers. Scientometrics, Vol. 97, no. 1: 25-36. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7.

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kyvik, S. 1990. Age and scientific productivity.Differences between fields of learning. Higher Education, Vol. 19, no. 1: 37-55. Available at: doi: 10.1007/BF00142022.

Kwiek, M. and Roszka, W. 2022. Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap. Scientometrics, Vol.127, no.4: 1697-1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04308-7

Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B. and Sugimoto, C. R. 2013. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature, Vol.504: 211–213.

Lerback, J., and Hanson, B. 2017. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, Vol.541, no.7638: 455-457.

Lerchenmüller, C., Lerchenmueller, M.J. and Sorenson, O. 2018. Long-term analysis of sex differences in prestigious authorships in cardiovascular research supported by the National Institutes of Health, Circulation, Vol. 137, no. 8: 880-882. Available at: doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032325.

Lewison, G. and Markusova, V. 2011. Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible? Scientometrics, Vol. 89, no. 1: 139–152. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0435-5.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). 2019. All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) (2018-2019), New Delhi: MHRD, Government of India. Available at: http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/viewDocument.action?documentId=263.

Muñoz-Muñoz, A.M. 2005.The scholarly transition of female academics at the University of Granada (1975-1990).Scientometrics, Vol. 64: 325–350. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0254-7.

Nourmohammadi, H. and Hodaei, F. 2014. Perspective of Iranian women’s scientific production in high priority fields of science and technology. Scientometrics, Vol. 98, no. 2: 1455–1471. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1098-1.

OECD. 2007. Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. Paris: OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf.

Over, R. 1988. Does scholarly impact decline with age? Scientometrics, Vol. 13, no. 5-6: 215-223. Available at: doi: 10.1007/BF02019959.

Riesenberg, D. and Lundberg, G.D. 1990. The order of authorship: who's on first? JAMA, Vol. 264, no 14: 1857. Available at: doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03450140079039.

Rørstad, K. and Aksnes, D.W. 2015. Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position–A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics, Vol.9, no.2: 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.003.

Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D. and Link, A. 2003.Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, Vol. 32, no. 1: 27-48. Available at: doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.

Simonton, D.K. 1984. Creative productivity and age: a mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Developmental Review, Vol. 4, no. 1: 77-111. Available at: doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(84)90020-0.

Simonton, D.K. 2003. Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129, no. 4: 475-494. Available at: doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475.

Stroebe, W. 2010. The graying of academia: will it reduce scientific productivity? American Psychologist, Vol. 65, no. 7: 660-673. Available at: doi: 10.1037/a0021086.

Su, R. and Rounds, J. 2015. All STEM fields are not created equal: people and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6: paper 189. Available at: doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189.

Su, R., Rounds, J. and Armstrong, P.I. 2009. Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 135, no. 6: 859–884. Available at: doi:10.1037/a0017364.

Tien, F.F. and Blackburn, R.T. 1996. Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: measure refinement and theory testing. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 67, no. 1: 2-22. Available at: doi: 10.1080/00221546.1996.11780246.

Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M.E., Rand, T.A., Resh, V.H. and Krauss, J. 2007.Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLOS Biology, Vol. 5, no. 1: e18. Available at: doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.

Uzzi, B. and Spiro, J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 111, no. 2: 447-504. Available at: doi: 10.1086/432782.

vanArensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I. and van den Besselaar, P. 2012. Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, Vol. 93, no. 3: 857-868. Available at: doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.

Ward, K.B. and Grant, L. (1996).Gender and academic publishing. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education, handbook of theory and research (Vol. XI), Bronx: Agathon Press.

Xie, Y. 1989. The process of becoming a scientist. PhD diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Zuckerman, H. 1991. The careers of men and women scientists: A review of current research. In: Zuckerman, H., Cole, J. R., & Bruer, J. T., (Eds.). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. 27-56, New York: W W Norton & Co.