Gender and Racial Representation Among Highly Cited Dental Researchers: A Google Scholar–Based Study

1. Introduction

Over the past several decades, dentistry has undergone substantial demographic shifts, with growing awareness and academic exploration of gender, racial, and ethnic representation across dental education and professional leadership. Studies have documented these transformations in student admissions, faculty hiring, and administrative roles (Gottlieb et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2022). However, one area that remains underexplored is the demographic composition of the top-tier researchers who drive innovation, patents, and knowledge dissemination within the field—those who often shape the future of dental science and oral health through prolific publishing, discoveries, and academic influence.

Examining representation among highly cited dental researchers can help identify disparities in scholarly visibility and recognition. Research on academic dentistry has highlighted the need for institutional structures that support faculty from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Smith et al., 2022), while broader studies have documented gender inequalities in scientific careers and prestigious research awards (Huang et al., 2020; Meho, 2021). These findings support examining who is represented among leading dental researchers and considering how institutional practices may promote more equitable opportunities for participation and recognition that better reflect society's changing demographics.

Despite the growing availability of digital AI-driven tools and platforms for measuring academic impact, few studies have used accessible online data to examine how race and gender correlate with research visibility and scholarly reputation in dentistry. Google Scholar, a widely used citation-tracking and profiling tool, offers a cost-effective, accessible, and widely applicable way to assess these factors globally (Halevi et al., 2017; Martín-Martín et al., 2017). By analyzing top researchers across dental specializations through their publicly available Google Scholar profiles, this study aims to determine whether certain demographic traits—namely, being male and Caucasian—are disproportionately represented among the most highly cited scientists in dental research and specialization.

This study describes demographic patterns among highly cited dental researchers and considers their implications for scholarly participation and recognition. It also identifies questions for future research on institutional practices and academic career development. The study’s findings aim to contribute to broader discussions about scientific representation, institutional priorities, and the societal values that shape who gets recognized, funded, tenured, patented, and remembered in the global dental research community.

2. Rationale and Focus

Numerous studies have examined gender and race representation in dentistry. For example, researchers have used Web of Science, surveys, and census data to decipher the demographics of top scientists (Huang et al., 2020; Kwiek & Szymula, 2023; Meho, 2021). However, advances in the internet have made it possible to identify top researchers and scientists using more manageable, less costly methods. Therefore, this study uses publicly accessible Google Scholar researcher profiles to assess the demographic composition of leading researchers in dental science and dental research. We used the area of study/specialization in dentistry to determine overall citation counts and distributions by race and gender, based on publicly available sources. The total citation count and public ranking are particularly important because many higher education institutions and research institutes use total citations, h-index, and ranking for salary and promotion considerations (Kandiko Howson et al., 2018). The aim of the current research is to examine whether gender and race (e.g., being male and Caucasian) are associated with citation counts among sampled researchers across various dental specialty research fields.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

This study used publicly available data accessed on the World Wide Web (e.g., Google Scholar) and subsequently did not require ethics approval. From December 2021 to January 2022, three reviewers extracted data via Google Scholar. As shown in Table 1, we identified the top 20 researchers in various dental research specializations and extracted their total citations. We also determined their race, gender, and other potentially valuable information (e.g., disability and sexual orientation) by following up on public search databases with three reviewers.

3.2. Material

This study chose Google Scholar over Web of Science, surveys, or PubMed because previous research has highlighted its ease of access and accuracy (Jozaghi, 2019). Moreover, Google Scholar is “a reliable, feasible, and valuable source for identifying highly cited articles” within science (Jozaghi, 2019, p. 3; Halevi et al., 2017; Martín-Martín et al., 2017). Additionally, Google Scholar reliably collects scholarly articles in various languages and provides h-index and i10-index metrics. It indexes books, letters, commentaries, dissertations, and theses across multiple disciplines; consequently, it provides a more reliable reflection of total worldwide citations (Halevi et al., 2017; Jozaghi, 2019; Martín-Martín et al., 2017). Since its 2004 launch, the platform has become a valuable social-network source, highlighting research specialization, supporting scholarly self-promotion, and providing an excellent source for gathering demographic information (Jozaghi, 2019). The platform currently ranks researchers by citation counts, links top-ranking researchers to a field of study, and connects them with respected colleges, research institutes, or universities (Jozaghi, 2019).

3.3. Analyses

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 30. Descriptive statistics summarized citation totals and demographic composition across the 11 dental research fields. An ordinal logistic regression model with a logit link was fitted to examine associations between Dental research field was included as a categorical predictor with 11 categories, using oral and maxillofacial surgery as the reference category. We entered dental research field as a categorical predictor, with oral and maxillofacial surgery as the reference category, as it is the most competitive and highly subspecialized field. However, ordinal regression requires a meaningfully ordered outcome; differences in specialty admissions or competitiveness do not independently justify its use (Garson, 2012; Norušis, 2010).

The proportional-odds assumption was assessed using the test of parallel lines. A nonsignificant result indicates insufficient evidence that predictor coefficients differ across cumulative outcome thresholds, although it does not establish overall model adequacy. Model improvement over the intercept-only model was assessed using the likelihood-ratio chi-square test. We examined Pearson and deviance goodness-of-fit statistics separately; statistically significant results indicate potential lack of fit, subject to limitations from sparse cells (Garson, 2012; Norušis, 2010). We summarized regression results using coefficient estimates (B), standard errors, Wald chi-square statistics, p-values, and 95% confidence intervals. Coefficient direction was interpreted according to the outcome ordering and predictor coding. Statistical significance was assessed using a two-sided threshold of p < .05.

4. Results

The sample comprised 220 researcher entries across 11 dental research fields, with 20 entries per field. Based on the reconciled specialty-level counts in Table 1, 45 entries were classified as female (20.5%) and 175 as male (79.5%). In addition, 120 entries were classified as non-Caucasian (54.5%) and 100 as Caucasian (45.5%). These totals were calculated from the specialty-level percentages and require confirmation against the individual records. The sampled entries accumulated 2,784,065 citations. General dentistry accounted for the largest share (25.9%), followed by periodontology (12.5%) and endodontics (12.4%). Oral radiology contributed the smallest share (1.3%), followed by oral and maxillofacial surgery (3.9%). These percentages reflect the distribution of citations within the selected sample, not across dental research as a whole.

Female representation varied across fields, ranging from 10.0% in periodontology and oral and maxillofacial surgery to 35.0% in oral pathology. Dental public health had the second-highest female representation (30.0%). Non-Caucasian global representation ranged from 25.0% in periodontology to 100.0% in oral radiology, reflecting that most of the world population is non-Caucasian. General dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery each had 70.0% non-Caucasian representation, whereas oral medicine and prosthodontics had 30.0% and 35.0%, respectively. Table 2 presents the reported ordinal regression estimates, with oral and maxillofacial surgery designated as the reference category. General dentistry had the largest positive coefficient (B = 7.187, SE = 0.703, 95% CI [5.808, 8.565], p < .001).

Positive coefficients were also reported for periodontology (B = 4.789, 95% CI [3.523, 6.055]), endodontics (B = 4.754, 95% CI [3.511, 5.998]), dental public health (B = 4.105, 95% CI [2.877, 5.332]), orthodontics (B = 4.105, 95% CI [2.877, 5.332]), oral pathology (B = 3.292, 95% CI [2.084, 4.500]), prosthodontics (B = 2.370, 95% CI [1.206, 3.535]), and oral medicine (B = 2.023, 95% CI [0.876, 3.171]); all had p < .001. Pediatric dentistry had a smaller, statistically nonsignificant coefficient (B = 1.007, SE = 0.561, 95% CI [−0.093, 2.107], p = .073). Oral radiology had a negative coefficient (B = −5.574, SE = 1.066, 95% CI [−7.663, −3.485], p < .001).

5. Discussion

This study identified variation in gender and racial composition among highly cited researcher entries across 11 dental research fields worldwide. Women accounted for about one-fifth of the sample, and their representation varied substantially across fields. Racial classifications also varied, although the broad Caucasian/non-Caucasian grouping limits interpretation of differences within and between populations. These findings provide a descriptive basis for investigating participation and recognition in dental research. Female representation was lowest in periodontology and oral and maxillofacial surgery and highest in oral pathology and dental public health. These differences suggest that an overall sample percentage can obscure variation across research fields. However, the study did not measure the demographic composition of each field’s eligible research workforce.

Consequently, it cannot determine whether the observed proportions reflect differences in entry into the field, career progression, research visibility, or selection into the highly cited sample. The findings complement research examining gender representation in dental publishing. Gottlieb et al. (2024) projected that women would account for 50% of authors in The Journal of the American Dental Association by 2024, while identifying continuing gaps among reviewers and editorial board members. That authorship projection and the present study’s citation-selected sample concern different populations and forms of participation worldwide. Nevertheless, their consideration together highlights the value of examining authorship, editorial responsibilities, leadership, and accumulated citations as distinct dimensions of scholarly recognition.

The reported regression estimates also differed across fields. General dentistry had the largest positive coefficient, oral radiology had a negative coefficient, and pediatric dentistry did not differ significantly from the designated reference category at the .05 level. These findings should not be interpreted as evidence that greater demographic diversity increases or decreases citations. Such an interpretation requires a clearly specified outcome, transparent coding of demographic predictors, and verification of the full model. Field coefficients alone cannot establish the independent contributions of gender and race. Citation patterns may also reflect differences in research volume, collaboration, publication practices, and career duration. Because the sample was selected using cumulative citation counts, researchers with longer publication histories may have had more time to accumulate citations. Future analyses should examine career stage, years since first publication, institutional affiliation, geographic location, and field-specific citation practices. These factors would help distinguish demographic associations from other influences on scholarly visibility.

Racial representation requires similarly careful interpretation. Although 54.5% of entries were classified as non-Caucasian, this category combines populations with different geographic, cultural, and institutional circumstances worldwide. Its overall proportion therefore cannot establish equitable representation. Comparisons with the general world population are also insufficient without consistent racial classifications and an appropriate research-workforce benchmark. More informative analyses would use clearly defined categories, preferably based on self-identification, and examine representation within relevant national and disciplinary contexts.

Research in academic dentistry supports examining institutional practices alongside demographic composition. Smith et al. (2022) identified barriers affecting faculty from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, including concerns about the recognition of research addressing health disparities and structural racism in tenure and promotion decisions. These findings support examining how recruitment, mentorship, evaluation, and advancement practices shape opportunities. The present study did not directly assess these mechanisms, but its descriptive patterns identify questions for more detailed institutional research. Scholarly recognition may affect professional advancement and access to research opportunities (Jozaghi, 2019; Kandiko Howson et al., 2018). Dental research can also produce technologies with commercial applications, and patents provide mechanisms for protecting and licensing inventions (Government of Canada, 2024). However, this study did not measure salaries, grant awards, tenure decisions, patent ownership, or commercial income. It therefore cannot establish that the observed demographic or citation patterns translate into differences in these outcomes.

Institutions could respond by examining whether researchers have equitable access to mentorship, collaboration, professional development, and leadership opportunities. Organizational literature identifies inclusive recruitment and employee engagement as relevant elements of diversity and inclusion initiatives (Olusanya, 2023). In dental schools and research institutes, these efforts could include transparent evaluation criteria and regular assessments of recruitment, retention, and advancement across demographic groups (Smith et al., 2022). Evaluate their effectiveness using measurable outcomes rather than assuming it based on the existence of formal policies. Dental schools could designate committees or offices to coordinate these activities and monitor progress. Representation goals should account for disciplinary and geographic context, while professional associations could expand mentorship and research development opportunities. The 5TDEI framework's tools, team, transparency, tracking, and training elements may provide a structure for organizing this work (Williams et al., 2025). These proposals are institutional implications to consider, not interventions this study tested for effectiveness.

Several limitations warrant attention. First, Google Scholar profiles are not available for all researchers, creating potential selection bias. Second, selecting 20 entries per field creates potentially equal-sized groups but does not reflect differences in each research workforce's size. Third, demographic classifications drawn from public sources may be inaccurate and should not be treated as equivalent to self-identification. We could not assess disability and sexual orientation, which limited the diversity dimensions we examined. Fourth, cumulative citations capture only one aspect of scholarly contribution and do not directly measure research quality, social value, or equitable opportunity.

6. Conclusions

This study identifies differences in gender and racial representation among highly cited dental researchers, highlighting the need to examine opportunities for participation, advancement, and recognition. Dental schools, accrediting bodies, dental societies, and research funders can support greater inclusion through equitable recruitment, accessible mentorship, and transparent evaluation practices (Gottlieb et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2022). As dental science evolves, these efforts may help ensure that researchers from diverse backgrounds contribute to its priorities and development. Future research should examine the institutional and career factors underlying the observed patterns, while recognizing that citation counts capture only one dimension of scholarly contribution. Promoting equitable opportunities in dental research remains an important goal for institutions serving diverse populations worldwide.