The Matilda Effect exposes a persistent pattern in science: women’s contributions are frequently overlooked, minimized, or credited to men. From Rosalind Franklin, whose DNA work underpinned Watson and Crick’s Nobel-winning model, to Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Lise Meitner, Chien-Shiung Wu, and Indian scientists like Janaki Ammal and Asima Chatterjee, history shows that women often drive breakthroughs yet remain invisible in the record.
This systemic invisibility is not accidental. Research shows that women are less likely to be listed as first or senior authors, cited in publications, or awarded prestigious prizes—even when producing work equal to or surpassing their male peers. Bias often operates through habit, institutional culture, and structural norms rather than hostility, channeling women into teaching, collaboration, or administrative roles while men receive visibility and accolades.
Globally, women constitute roughly one-third of researchers, but their representation sharply declines at senior levels. The Matilda Effect reminds young women entering science that invisibility is structural, not personal, and emphasizes the importance of documenting contributions and claiming authorship. Correcting the record does not rewrite science; it ensures that the true history of discovery reflects the work of all who contributed. Until science confronts how it remembers, it cannot claim to be objective or neutral.
