What is it about?
A new study has re-examined one of the most widely cited papers in the history of gender equity in science — and found the evidence far more fragile than previously believed. In 1997, a short article in Nature by Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold sent shockwaves through the scientific world. The authors claimed that women applying for research fellowships in Sweden needed to be 2.4 times more productive than men to be rated equally competent. The paper became a symbol of systemic gender bias in academia, cited thousands of times and embedded in policy documents from the European Commission and U.S. National Academies. For the first time, a research team from Sweden has reproduced the study using the original dataset — and the results are surprising. “The original study made history, but it had never been independently reproduced,” says Sandström, lead author of the new article published in Quantitative Science Studies (Vol. 6, 2025). “When we applied more robust methods and adjusted for structural differences across disciplines and review committees, the gender gap essentially disappeared.”
Featured Image
Photo by Natalie Hua on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This research is important for several reasons: 1. Scientific Reproducibility and Integrity: The study exemplifies a rigorous approach to reproducing high-impact, policy-relevant science, addressing long-standing concerns about the verifiability of influential claims that had not been empirically revisited for over two decades. 2. Nuancing the Debate on Gender Bias: It shifts the conversation from overt bias to more complex structural and interpretive inequalities, thereby refining how gender disparity in academic funding is understood and studied. 3. Policy and Symbolism: The Wennerås & Wold paper became a symbolic cornerstone in science policy, cited by institutions such as the European Commission and U.S. National Academies. By reassessing its empirical foundations, this study opens up critical dialogue about the role of science in policymaking and how symbolic results can outpace their methodological foundations. 4. Transparency in Peer Review Research: The study provides a rare, detailed look into actual peer review procedures, offering valuable insights for future meta-research on fairness, transparency, and gender equity in research funding.
Perspectives
The original narrative—that women had to be “2.4 times better”—has shaped how generations of women perceived academia. Our study reintroduces trust as a social variable: trust in peer review, in fairness, in the possibility of meritocracy. By showing that review committees may in fact have followed their rules, our study nuances the social story: the system might not be flawless, but it is not as arbitrary as many feared. Conclusion: Restoring nuance may help rebuild confidence in academic evaluation.
Dr Ulf Sandström
Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Reliability and validity of a high-profile peer review study: Probing Wennerås and Wold’s data in
Nature, Quantitative Science Studies, January 2025, The MIT Press,
DOI: 10.1162/qss.a.395.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
