Gender, lifecourse and publication decisions in toxic-exposure epidemiology: 'Now!' versus 'wait a minute!'

Existing studies of gender and lifecourse in science have not focused on publication decisions, and even less so for publication of studies liable to attract media and public attention. This paper is based on semi-structured interviews with 61 US toxic-exposure epidemiologists about their publication decisions. It examines gender differences in how scientists, as they move through the lifecourse, approach publication decisions for research bearing potential societal implications. Though preliminary, the data suggest that males are overall more comfortable than females with pursuing visible publication and handling media coverage, However, males and females may begin to crisscross over time. Specifically, males started out in publishing potentially controversial papers in visible journals likely to attract media and public attention, but grew more cautious with age, rank, and experience. Amongst females, the situation was less homogenous: while some (often, the most élite) reported patterns similar to males', more reported following the reverse pattern as they moved through the lifecourse. These differences may stem in part from gender differences in self-confidence, risk-taking, and competitiveness. The wider significance and limitations of the data are discussed, and lines of further research (including nine testable hypotheses) are suggested.