  Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be
informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as
potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear
whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation
impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics.
This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact
1996-2018 for six million articles from seven large English-speaking nations:
Australia, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. The results
show that a small female citation advantage has been the norm over time for all
these countries except the USA, where there has been no practical difference.
The female citation advantage is largest, and statistically significant in most
years, for Australia and the UK. This suggests that any academic bias against
citing female authored research cannot explain current employment inequalities.
Nevertheless, comparisons using recent citation data, or avoiding it
altogether, during appointments or promotion may disadvantage females in some
countries by underestimating the likely impact of their work, especially in the
long term.
