You may have heard of the Matthew effect and/or Matilda effect in scholarship, especially the sciences:

• Matthew effect: The sociologist Robert K. Merton introduced this term, defining it as “the accruing of greater increments of recognition for particular scientific contributions to scientists of considerable repute and the withholding of such recognition from scientists who have not yet made their mark” (p. 58). (Or: The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.) He later acknowledged that he should have recognized Harriet Zuckerman as a co-author of that article.
   
• Matilda effect: Margaret W. Rossiter, a historian of science, coined this term to describe the “systematic undervaluing of women's contributions to science” (p. 334). Merton’s aforementioned omission of Harriet Zuckerman as a co-author is a prime example of the Matilda effect.
   

Many studies have examined article citation data and demonstrated that gender disparities in citation practices and self-citation practices do indeed exist. There have started to be some studies of intersectional citation gaps as well.

Needless to say, inequities in citational practices result in inequities in citation-based metrics and compound into inequities within disciplines and across academia at large.

Icon credit: snowball by MH Seo from Noun Project (CC BY 3.0)