Media coverage shapes public perception of science, yet gender bias can compromise its objectivity. Based on 1 million papers with 1.2 million media citations, we examine how the corresponding author’s gender relates to media citing scientific research. We reveal that more women-led papers receive at least one media mention in women-underrepresented fields, but they are cited less frequently across all fields. Women authors are underrepresented in national outlets and are more often reported by liberal media. Sentiment analysis shows that men-led papers are more often associated with positive sentiment in news text, while women-led papers elicit more negative sentiment.
AguinisH.JiY. H.JooH. (2018). Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 1283–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000331
2.
AmbergA.SaundersD. N. (2020). Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research. PLOS ONE, 15(11), Article e0242133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242133
3.
AndersonJ.DudoA. (2023). A view from the trenches: Interviews with journalists about reporting science news. Science Communication, 45(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221149156
4.
AsrF. T.MazraehM.LopesA.GautamV.GonzalesJ.RaoP.TaboadaM. (2021). The gender gap tracker: Using natural language processing to measure gender bias in media. PLOS ONE, 16(1), Article e0245533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245533
5.
AutzenC. (2014). Press releases—The new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030302
BredaT.JouiniE.NappC.ThebaultG. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063–31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
9.
BrossardD. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212744110
CaplarN.TacchellaS.BirrerS. (2017). Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nature Astronomy, 1(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0141
12.
CarlssonM.FinseraasH.MidtbøenA. H.RafnsdóttirG. L. (2021). Gender bias in academic recruitment? Evidence from a survey experiment in the Nordic region. European Sociological Review, 37(3), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa050
13.
CeciS. J.GintherD. K.KahnS.WilliamsW. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236
14.
CeciS. J.KahnS.WilliamsW. M. (2023). Exploring gender bias in six key domains of academic science: An adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 24(1), 15–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006231163179
Clemm von HohenbergB.Menchen-TrevinoE.CasasA.WojcieszakM. (2021). A list of over 5000 US news domains and their social media accounts [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7651047
17.
CorneilleM.LeeA.AllenS.CannadyJ.GuessA. (2019). Barriers to the advancement of women of color faculty in STEM: The need for promoting equity using an intersectional framework. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(3), 328–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2017-0199
18.
Cruz-CastroL.Sanz-MenéndezL. (2023). Gender bias in funding evaluation: A randomized experiment. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(3), 594–621. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00263
19.
DavidsonN. R.GreeneC. S. (2024). Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage. eLife, 12, RP84855. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84855
20.
DonsbachW. (2004). Psychology of news decisions: Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior. Journalism, 5(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490452002
21.
DuctorL.GoyalS.PrummerA. (2023). Gender and collaboration. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 105, 1366–1378. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01113
22.
Dumas-MalletE.GarenneA.BoraudT.GononF. (2020). Does newspapers coverage influence the citations count of scientific publications? An analysis of biomedical studies. Scientometrics, 123(1), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03380-1
23.
DunwoodyS. (2021). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
24.
DworkinJ. D.LinnK. A.TeichE. G.ZurnP.ShinoharaR. T.BassettD. S. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y
25.
FalkA.HermleJ. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899
FleerackersA.ChtenaN.PinfieldS.AlperinJ. P.BarataG.OliveiraM.PetersI. (2024). Making science public: A review of journalists’ use of Open Access research. F1000Research, 12, 512. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133710.2
28.
FletcherS.JoeM. B.HernandezS.TomanI.HarrisonT. G.RuzyckiS. M. (2021). The gender of COVID-19 experts in newspaper articles: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(4), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06579-3
29.
ForscherP. S.CoxW. T. L.BrauerM.DevineP. G. (2019). Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y
30.
FoxC. W.PaineC. E. T. (2019). Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution, 9(6), 3599–3619. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4993
GërxhaniK.KulicN.LiechtiF. (2023). Double standards? Co-authorship and gender bias in early-stage academic evaluations. European Sociological Review, 39(2), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcac045
33.
GilbertS.WhiteP. B.TallmanK. (2022). Information seeking behaviors of environmental journalists. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(3), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211020081
34.
González-BetancorS. M.Dorta-GonzálezP. (2023). Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?Journal of Informetrics, 17(4), 101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101452
35.
GonzálezD.MateuA.PonsE.DomínguezM. (2017). Women scientists as decor: The image of scientists in Spanish press pictures. Science Communication, 39(4), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017719074
36.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000016
37.
Guerrero-BoteV. P.Moya-AnegónF. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 674–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001
38.
HansenA. (2008). Science, communication and media. In HollimanR.WhiteleggE.ScanlonE.SmidtS.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford University Press.
39.
HillP. W.McQuillanJ.SpiegelA. N.DiamondJ. (2018). Discovery orientation, cognitive schemas, and disparities in science identity in early adolescence. Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417724774
40.
HodgettsD.ChamberlainK.ScammellM.KarapuR.Waimarie NikoraL. (2008). Constructing health news: Possibilities for a civic-oriented journalism. Health, 12(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459307083697
41.
HubnerA. Y. (2023). The invisible frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining sourcing and the underrepresentation of female expertise in pandemic news coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 32(8), 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231193123
42.
HultgrenA. E.PatrasN. M.HicksJ. (2024). Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award. eLife, 13, e92339. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92339
43.
HusuL.TainioL. (2016). Representations of women researchers in Finnish print media: Top researchers, multi-talents and experts. Investigaciones Feministas, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5209/INFE.53796
44.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013
45.
JonkerH.VanleeF.YsebaertW. (2022). Societal impact of university research in the written press: Media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium. Scientometrics, 127(12), 7289–7306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04374-x
46.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. https://doi.org/10.1086/226425
Knobloch-WesterwickS.GlynnC. J. (2013). 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
49.
KozlowskiD.LarivièreV.SugimotoC. R.Monroe-WhiteT. (2022). Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(2), Article e2113067119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119
50.
KuchanskyiO.AndrashkoY.BiloshchytskyiA.OmirbayevS.MukhatayevA.BiloshchytskaS.FaizullinA. (2023). Gender-related differences in the citation impact of scientific publications and improving the authors’ productivity. Publications, 11(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030037
51.
LarivièreV.NiC.GingrasY.CroninB.SugimotoC. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
52.
LerchenmuellerM. J.SorensonO. (2018). The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Research Policy, 47(6), 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.009
53.
LiuM.ZhangN.HuX.JaiswalA.XuJ.ChenH.DingY.BuY. (2022). Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Coronavirus-related literature. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101295
54.
LoureiroD.BarbieriF.NevesL.AnkeL. E.Camacho-ColladosJ. (2022). TimeLMs: Diachronic language models from Twitter (No. arXiv:2202.03829). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03829
55.
LucJ. G. Y.VervoortD.PercyE.HirjiS.MannG. K.PhanK.DibasM.VaduganathanM.PreventzaO.AntonoffM. B. (2021). Trends in female authorship: A bibliometric analysis of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 111(4), 1387–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.031
56.
LukandaI. N. (2021). Female voices marginalised in media coverage of science in Uganda, both as authors and sources. Journal of Science Communication, 20(2), A11. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20020211
57.
MaliniakD.PowersR.WalterB. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209
58.
McCombsM.ValenzuelaS. (2020). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. John Wiley & Sons.
59.
MeyersM.LeideJ. (2020). Gender, race, and the news: Enduring bias. In The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication (pp. 1–11). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc212
NiemiM. K.PitkänenV. (2017). Gendered use of experts in the media: Analysis of the gender gap in Finnish news journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 26(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515621470
62.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A Media Effects Model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196
63.
OhamadikeN.DurrheimK.PrimusM. (2025). Whose voice matters? Word embeddings reveal identity bias in news quotes. EPJ Data Science, 14(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00541-1
64.
OliveiraD. F. M.MaY.WoodruffT. K.UzziB. (2019). Comparison of national institutes of health grant amounts to first-time male and female principal investigators. Journal of the American Medical Association, 321(9), 898–900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.21944
65.
PengH.TeplitskiyM.JurgensD. (2024). Author mentions in science news reveal widespread disparities across name-inferred ethnicities. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(2), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00297
66.
RobertsonR. E.JiangS.JosephK.FriedlandL.LazerD.WilsonC. (2018). Auditing partisan audience bias within Google search. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 148. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274417
67.
RosenC.GuentherL.FroehlichK. (2016). The question of newsworthiness: A cross-comparison among science journalists’ selection criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany. Science Communication, 38(3), 328–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645585
68.
RossM. B.GlennonB. M.Murciano-GoroffR.BerkesE. G.WeinbergB. A.LaneJ. I. (2023). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608(7921), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
69.
SchultzT. (2021). All the research that’s fit to print: Open access and the news media. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(3), 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00139
70.
SeverinA.StrinzelM.EggerM.BarrosT.SokolovA.MouattJ. V.MüllerS. (2023). Relationship between journal impact factor and the thoroughness and helpfulness of peer reviews. PLOS Biology, 21(8), Article e3002238. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002238
71.
ShacharO. (2000). Spotlighting women scientists in the press: Tokenism in science journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 9(4), 347. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/301
ThelwallM. (2020). Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English-speaking nations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24316
74.
ThelwallM.BaileyC.TobinC.BradshawN.-A. (2019). Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.002
75.
ThelwallM.HausteinS.LarivièreV.SugimotoC. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLOS ONE, 8(5), Article e64841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
76.
VásárhelyiO.ZakhlebinI.MilojevićS.HorvátE.-Á. (2021). Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars’ work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(39), Article e2102945118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102945118
77.
VeraP. S.OrtegaL.GarcíaA. L. M.CabalinC. (2025). Coverage of expert women in the press: Framing of female researchers in education in Chile. Cuadernos.info, 60, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.60.76738
78.
ViswanathK.BlakeK. D.MeissnerH. I.SaiontzN. G.MullC.FreemanC. S.HesseB.CroyleR. T. (2008). Occupational practices and the making of health news: A national survey of U.S. health and medical science journalists. Journal of Health Communication, 13(8), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802487430
79.
WayS. F.LarremoreD. B.ClausetA. (2016). Gender, productivity, and prestige in computer science faculty hiring networks. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1169–1179). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883073
80.
WegnerJ. (2025). Televisual inequalities and gender dynamics in German news: Health experts during the COVID-19 crisis. Media and Communication, 13, Article 9395. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9395
81.
WheatleyD.RossK.CarterC.BoyleK. (2024). Gender in/and the news in the UK and Republic of Ireland: Slow but (un)steady progress?Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241276836
82.
WittemanH. O.HendricksM.StrausS.TannenbaumC. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393(10171), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4
83.
WrenJ. D. (2005). Open access and openly accessible: A study of scientific publications shared via the internet. British Medical Journal, 330, Article 1128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38422.611736.E0
84.
ZhangL.SivertsenG.DuH.HuangY.GlänzelW. (2021). Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. Scientometrics, 126(11), 8861–8886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04171-y
85.
ZhengX.NiC. (2025). Dissecting the global peer review ecosystem: Skewness, homophily, and diversity dynamics. Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00358
86.
ZhengX.ChenJ.YanE.NiC. (2023). Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24723
87.
ZhengX.YuanH.NiC. (2022). Meta-Research: How parenthood contributes to gender gaps in academia. eLife, 11, Article e78909. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78909
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
