Our article, "Re-evaluating evidence for a 'naming bias' in scientific awards," has been published in Nature Human Behavior. In this paper, our team responds to ongoing debates about gender disparities in scientific awards and re-examines the findings in the 2024 Nature Human Behaviour article, "How we name academic prizes matters", claiming that the gender of the person an award is named after determines who receives the award. In collaboration with the authors of the original study, our team conducted a more rigorous re-analysis of the data from more than 8,500 awardees across 334 scientific awards using multilevel modeling, longitudinal data structures, and additional controls such as award type, career stage, and awarding body. Our findings suggest that naming bias is substantially weaker than previously reported. Women were not significantly more likely to win neutrally named awards or awards named after both men and women, nor were less likely to win awards named after men. Instead, the analysis found that women were 66% more likely to receive awards named after women. The re-analysis also identified broader structural patterns including women being 79% more likely to receive early-career awards and substantially more likely to receive mentorship (158%), public engagement (64%), and DEI-focused (370%) awards. Overall, the paper highlights the importance of addressing broader nomination and panel biases, alongside award naming practices, in efforts to continue advancing gender equity in scientific recognition.
Read the full article here!
