Systemic Gendered Citation Imbalance in Computer Science: Evidence from Conferences and Journals

TL;DR

This study reveals significant gendered citation imbalances in computer science, especially in top-tier conferences, driven by homophilic citation tendencies and author prominence, highlighting systemic disparities in academic recognition.

Contribution

It provides the first systematic analysis of gendered citation patterns in conference and journal papers in computer science, emphasizing the role of conference culture in perpetuating imbalances.

Findings

Women-authored papers receive fewer citations than expected.

Conference papers at top-tier venues show the most pronounced gender imbalance.

Author prominence and co-authorship networks influence citation disparities.

Abstract

Gender imbalance persists across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, including computer science, where it appears in researcher demographics, productivity, recognition, hiring, and career progression. Given computer science's rapid expansion and global influence, addressing this imbalance is essential for broadening participation and fueling innovation. Although journal-oriented disciplines exhibit consistent gender imbalances in citation practices, it remains unclear whether similar patterns arise in the conference-centric culture of computer science. Here, we systematically investigate gender imbalance in citations of conference and journal papers in computer science. We find that papers for which a woman is listed as either first or last author receive fewer citations than expected, partly because of homophilic citation tendencies (i.e., authors tend to cite papers that share specific attributes). This imbalance is especially pronounced for conference papers--particularly those published at top-tier venues--relative to journals. Moreover, we find that the prominence of the first or last author and the structure of their local co-authorship networks are potential drivers of these imbalances. By exploring how conference-centric publishing practices can amplify systemic imbalances in computer science, our study offers insights that may inform efforts to foster more equitable representation in academia.