Data from: Working groups, gender and publication impact of Canada’s ecology and evolution faculty

Working groups are recognized as a highly effective method for
synthesizing science. It is less clear if participating in working groups
benefits individual researchers, or if benefits differ between men and
women. This is a critical question, for the working group method is not
sustainable if the benefit to science comes at a cost to academic careers
or gender equity. Here, we analyze the publications of Canadian university
faculty specialized in ecology and evolution (N=1244), a field that has
embraced the working group method. Researchers were more likely to have
participated in a working group as their academic age and prior H-index
increased, but controlling for these factors there was no effect of
gender. Using a longitudinal analysis, we find that researcher H-indices
accrue 14% faster following their first working group publication,
regardless of gender. Part of this acceleration may be the 3- to 5-fold
higher citation rate of working group synthesis publications. In a survey
(N=169), researchers also report indirect benefits of working groups, at
similar rates for men and women.  Working groups are therefore,
good not just for science but also for scientists. Formalized mechanisms
for collaborations such as working groups may also offset gender
inequities in science.