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 greater impact of their work, especially in the long term.

中文翻译：

---

1996-2018 年七分之六英语国家的女性引用影响优势

与学术界持续存在的性别不平等作斗争的努力需要得到关于差异发生地点的证据。引用作为任命和晋升决策中的潜在证据是相关的，但目前尚不清楚平均引用影响是否存在历史性别差异，这可能解释了当前高级女性学者的短缺。本研究调查了 1996-2018 年来自七个英语大国的 600 万篇文章在引文影响方面的性别差异演变：澳大利亚、加拿大、爱尔兰、牙买加、新西兰、英国和美国。结果表明，随着时间的推移，除了美国之外，所有这些国家的女性引用优势都较小，美国没有实际差异。女性引文优势最大，并且在大多数年份具有统计显着性，对于澳大利亚和英国。这表明任何反对引用女性研究的学术偏见都不能解释当前的就业不平等。然而，在任命或晋升期间使用最近的引文数据进行比较，或完全避免引用数据，可能会低估女性工作可能产生的更大影响，尤其是长期影响，从而使女性处于不利地位。