Why Are Women's Achievements Attributed to "Collaborators"? "Discoveries Made, Yet Names Disappear" — The True Nature of the "Matilda Effect" Hidden in the History of Science

We are often tempted to believe that "science is a meritocracy." Data doesn't lie, experiments can be replicated, and theories are open to everyone—these ideals are indeed the core of science. However, even if the ideals are correct, the "evaluation" conducted by humans is not always neutral.

The "Matilda effect," highlighted in a French newspaper commentary, sheds light on this blind spot. The achievements of female researchers are often denied, underestimated, or sometimes "re-labeled" as the accomplishments of their male colleagues. In other words, it's not the discovery itself, but the "name" that should be attached to the discovery that gets distorted.

What is the "Matilda Effect"?—The Mechanism of "Disappearing Achievements"

The Matilda effect is a concept that explains the phenomenon where women's achievements become less visible, proposed by historian Margaret W. Rossiter in the 1990s. The name is derived from Matilda Joslyn Gage, an activist who exposed the structure that erases women's intellectual contributions from society.

The key point is that it does not only refer to "blatant discrimination." Rather, the issue in modern times is that **the accumulation of everyday "judgments without malice"** leads to a shift in the attribution of achievements.

For example, consider the following scenarios.

• In collaborative research, even when contributions are similar, the "representative" is more likely to be recognized as the male side

• In academic presentations or media interactions, the most prominent roles are more likely to be assigned to men

• In the order of authorship in papers, acknowledgments, or inventor sections of patents, women are excluded or placed at the back

• An unconscious assumption that "she is an assistant" and "he is the leader" operates

• In later historical narratives, educational materials, or articles for the general public, the "understandable protagonist" is fixed as male

Scientific achievements become entrenched in society through "circuits" like papers, patents, awards, citations, news articles, biographies, and textbooks. If distortion occurs somewhere in these circuits, even if the discovery remains, only the name of the discoverer disappears.

What Typical Examples Show: Why "Being Evaluated Later" Is Not Enough

There are commonalities in the cases often cited to explain the Matilda effect. The individuals are talented, and their achievements are significant. Yet, at the moment of evaluation, their "names drop."

Symbolic examples include Rosalind Franklin, who obtained data related to the discovery of DNA structure, Lise Meitner, who played a crucial role in nuclear fission research, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who was involved in the discovery of pulsars. In France, there are also topics tied to domestic history, such as Marthe Gautier, whose name comes up in discussions about the discovery of the cause of Down syndrome.

It is tempting to dismiss these cases as "stories of the past," but that's not the issue. What is important is that these cases indicate that the very "design of evaluation" itself can create biases.

Moreover, modern research has become larger in scale and more complex in terms of the distribution of achievements than in the past. The more complex it becomes, the more ambiguous "who did what" becomes, and the more room there is for unconscious biases to creep into these ambiguities.

Evidence That "It Is Still Happening": Data Showing "Credit Disparities"

Recent studies examining credit attribution within research teams using large-scale data have reported a tendency for women to be less credited as "names" on papers or patents. The important perspective is not simply that "women are less productive," but that even when working in the same team, there is a difference in the "probability of having their names included".

These results suggest that the Matilda effect is not just a "historical anecdote," but something that can occur within modern institutional designs, organizational cultures, and practices.

Of course, the situation varies by field, country, laboratory culture, career stage, and so on. However, if disparities are arising at the "entry point of evaluation," female researchers may find that even with the same effort, the achievements recorded on their resumes are thinner, making it harder to secure subsequent funding, positions, and collaborative research opportunities.

In other words, the Matilda effect is not just a matter of honor but is directly linked to the reproduction of careers.

Reactions on Social Media: Intersection of Empathy and Backlash on "Evaluation Issues"

The Matilda effect is a topic that often divides reactions on social media. Three prominent patterns are particularly noticeable.

1) "Even Famous Female Scientists Were at Risk" Type

On overseas forums, comments can be found suggesting that even individuals known as "exceptionally successful women" might have been overlooked in evaluations without strong support from those around them.
The point here is that successful examples are not "counterexamples," but rather serve as material to question "why they were able to succeed." The notion that "if there is a genius, it is fair" does not hold. It is merely that there are geniuses who can break through even in unfair environments—this is the perspective.

2) "It's Not Just Gender, the Perspective of Intersectional Discrimination" Type

Similarly, on social media, voices point out the possibility that, in addition to being female, factors such as origin, religion, immigration, and political circumstances have affected the visibility of researchers.
This serves as an important auxiliary line. The Matilda effect may seem like a story about "women in general," but in reality, differences in background can overlap, amplifying invisibility. Discussions on social media act as a brake to prevent oversimplification of the concept.

3) "So, How Do We Fix It?" Type (Proposals for Systems and Operations)

On business-oriented social media like LinkedIn, in addition to raising issues, practical topics such as "how to make the attribution of research achievements transparent," "who to put forward in public relations," and "how to improve the recommendation and award system" are more likely to emerge.
The discussion moves in the direction of embedding it into the operation of research organizations, rather than ending with "it's unfair."

Discussions on social media can often become emotional, but on the flip side, this reflects the reality that "being evaluated or not" can determine one's life. Not limited to the world of research, the "share of achievements" is sensitive in any organization. Therefore, instead of dismissing emotions, it is necessary to carefully examine the structure that generates emotions.

So, What Should Be Changed: Implementation Measures to Reduce the Matilda Effect

Countermeasures are not just about "raising awareness." Awareness is important, but it can waver. It is necessary to establish systems that do not distort even when awareness wavers.

• Clarification of Contributions: Document who did what from the early stages of the project (it's too late just before writing the paper)

• Transparency of Authorship and Acknowledgment Rules: Stop "implicit rules" in each laboratory and share judgment criteria

• Improvement of Recommendation and Award Processes: Devise methods for exploring candidates and reduce biases in recommendation networks

• Design of Public Relations: Consciously avoid the problem of "fixed representatives" in media interactions and speaker selection

• Inspection with Data: Regularly visualize the number of appearances of authors in papers, inventors in patents, press releases, etc., and correct any biases

At this point, the Matilda effect appears not as a "women's issue," but as a governance issue of "how organizations distribute achievements."

"Whose name remains" is also related to the trust in science. Accurately recording contributors is an ethical matter and a part of research quality.

Source URL

1. Ouest-France article explaining the "Matilda Effect"
   https://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/2026-01-28/qu-est-ce-que-l-effet-matilda-qui-gomme-ce-que-les-femmes-apportent-aux-sciences-1fa4a95a-717d-47fb-a9d4-7f7723bee898

2. French Ministry of Higher Education and Research (Definition of the Matilda Effect, origin of the term, introduction of related content)
   https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/les-fabuleuses-un-documentaire-pour-denoncer-l-effet-matilda-98622

3. Nature (Research paper showing the tendency for women to be less credited within research teams)
   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04966-w

4. INSP (Explanation page organizing the term and specific examples)
   https://w3.insp.upmc.fr/parlons-parite-quest-ce-que-leffet-matilda/

5. RFI (Explanation and case introduction about the Matilda Effect)
   https://www.rfi.fr/fr/science/20210307-journ%C3%A9e-sp%C3%A9ciale-les-femmes-scientifiques-victimes-de-l-effet-matilda

6. Reddit (Examples of discussions on social media: addition of cases, reinforcement of perspectives, indications that it remains in modern times)
   https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1moyk72/matilda_effect_how_science_became_a_mans_world_by/

7. LinkedIn (Example of an introduction post on social media: summary of the concept and enumeration of representative examples)
   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/space-girls2022_leffet-matilda-ou-les-oubli%C3%A9es-de-la-science-activity-7146174352550535168-O5Hl

8. Wikipedia (Overview of definition, origin, and representative examples. Referenced as supplementary material)
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_effect
   https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Matilda