PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Carnes, MollyLanguage: search.filters.language.English

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men Open PDF 
    (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, 2021)
    Murrar, Sohad
    ;
    Johnson, Paula A.
    ;
    Lee, You-Geon
    ;
    Carnes, Molly
    Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Athena SWAN and ADVANCE: effectiveness and lessons learned Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Rosser, Sue V
    ;
    Barnard, Sarah
    ;
    Carnes, Molly
    ;
    Munir, Fehmidah
    As educational attainment has increased globally in recent decades, women's participation in higher education (ie, university level or above) has also risen greatly. Although discoveries and practices within science, medicine, and global health have a tremendous effect on women, women's representation as researchers and leaders in these fields continues to lag. This Viewpoint discusses the current situation and interventions of two high income countries: the USA and the UK. Increasing the pipeline of women receiving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees has not translated to comparable percentages of women in the STEM workforce in either the USA1 or the UK.2 Disaggregated US data show a higher attrition of women throughout their academic careers compared with men, resulting in lower proportions of full female professors—ranging from 10% in engineering to 38% in psychology.1 Further, US universities awarding the majority of research doctoral degrees have fewer full female professors, as well as fewer women at the lower ranks of assistant and associate professors compared with less research intensive institutions. Similar trends are evident in the UK: in 2014–15, women represented 47% of all postgraduate research students and 45% of academic staff, but only 19% of professors in science, engineering, and technology, 23% of all professors, and 29% of senior academic management.2 To address the underrepresentation of women, both the UK and the USA launched initiatives in the early 2000s to advance gender equity in STEM within academic institutions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women's health and women's leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Carnes, Molly
    ;
    Morrissey, Claudia
    ;
    Geller, Stacie E.
    The term "glass ceiling" refers to women's lack of advancement into leadership positions despite no visible barriers. The term has been applied to academic medicine for over a decade but has not previously been applied to the advancement of women's health. This paper discusses (1) the historical linking of the advances in women's health with women's leadership in academic medicine, (2) the slow progress of women into leadership in academic medicine, and (3) indicators that the advancement of women's health has stalled. We make the case that deeply embedded unconscious gender-based biases and assumptions underpin the stalled advancement of women on both fronts. We conclude with recommendations to promote progress beyond the apparent glass ceiling that is preventing further advancement of women's health and women leaders. We emphasize the need to move beyond "fixing the women" to a systemic, institutional approach that acknowledges and addresses the impact of unconscious, gender-linked biases that devalue and marginalize women and issues associated with women, such as their health.