Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20597 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866914412315541504 |
|---|---|
| author | Biliotti, C. Riccaboni, M. Lockhart, J. W. Evans, J. A. |
| author_facet | Biliotti, C. Riccaboni, M. Lockhart, J. W. Evans, J. A. |
| contents | Women and men pursue different but complementary forms of scientific innovation. Analyzing 261,452 solo-authored papers by U.S. scholars, with patterns confirmed by millions of multi-authored articles, we show that women more often bridge distant disciplines through novel reference combinations, while men more often recombine concepts within fields. Women's interdisciplinary innovations prove more disruptive and more prescient, yet science penalizes them for it. For equally innovative work, women's papers land in lower-prestige journals and tend to receive less downstream citation credit, though their disruptive impact is greater. These gaps narrow only at extreme levels of novelty, suggesting women must produce exceptionally surprising work to achieve parity. Men's within-field concept innovations, by contrast, attract recognition from disciplinary gatekeepers who control careers. The asymmetry reveals not a deficit in women's contributions but a reward structure that systematically undervalues the boundary-crossing work most likely to transform fields. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_20597 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | The Innovation Recognition Paradox: How Science Undervalues the Boundary-Crossing Work Women Produce Biliotti, C. Riccaboni, M. Lockhart, J. W. Evans, J. A. Digital Libraries Women and men pursue different but complementary forms of scientific innovation. Analyzing 261,452 solo-authored papers by U.S. scholars, with patterns confirmed by millions of multi-authored articles, we show that women more often bridge distant disciplines through novel reference combinations, while men more often recombine concepts within fields. Women's interdisciplinary innovations prove more disruptive and more prescient, yet science penalizes them for it. For equally innovative work, women's papers land in lower-prestige journals and tend to receive less downstream citation credit, though their disruptive impact is greater. These gaps narrow only at extreme levels of novelty, suggesting women must produce exceptionally surprising work to achieve parity. Men's within-field concept innovations, by contrast, attract recognition from disciplinary gatekeepers who control careers. The asymmetry reveals not a deficit in women's contributions but a reward structure that systematically undervalues the boundary-crossing work most likely to transform fields. |
| title | The Innovation Recognition Paradox: How Science Undervalues the Boundary-Crossing Work Women Produce |
| topic | Digital Libraries |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20597 |