ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Gender- and discipline-specific bibliometric analysis of elite biomedical scientists: how is pharmacology performing?
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacology through the lens of bibliometrics: global trends, research hotspots, and collaborations (2015-2026).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ursula Ravens - recipient of the Schmiedeberg Medal: a distinguished career dedicated to cardiovascular pharmacology and cardiac electrophysiology.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In two recent studies ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38652280/ ; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38864907/ ) we bibliometrically analyzed Nobel laureates and top pharmacologists in Germany and found massive underrepresentation of women. In this follow-up study, using www.research.com as a source, gender relations in elite biomedical research were analyzed at a global level. A total of 9791 researchers from 29 countries from the main category of biology and biochemistry were analyzed. The pooled global data set results in a proportion of 14.9% women among the elite researchers; in the individual countries, it ranged from 31.2% (Italy) to 0% (Egypt, Iran, Nigeria; however, only very small sample sizes here). Pharmacology is characterized by lower bibliometric indices than biology and biochemistry; i.e., pharmacologists have a less prominent international perception in science than other fields. Pharmacologists must generate more output to achieve a similar status to other disciplines. The analysis using common bibliometric parameters and the newly defined h/P-Index revealed that women in biology and biochemistry globally have a significantly higher h/P-Index than men-they are characterized by a more consistent scientific quality. Women are "doing well" in bibliometric analyses, achieving a good position in science measured by bibliometric parameters, despite the strong underrepresentation in elite science. In conclusion, caution must be exerted when comparing disciplines and countries bibliometrically because they have different cultures, and women are differentially represented in elite research in various countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.