PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in scientific productivity and visibility in core neurosurgery journals: Citations and social media metrics
    (2018)
    Sotudeh, H.
    ;
    Dehdarirad, T.
    ;
    Freer, J.
    Social media has provided new opportunities for both female and male academics to disseminate their research results, and presence on the Internet is found to increase the visibility of scholars. Thus, this study examined whether there were differences in terms of scientific productivity or the visibility (both in terms of citations and social media metrics) of female and male scholars in the field of neurosurgery. To do this, 11,127 articles and reviews from 2012 to 2014 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. This accounted for 14,944 unique authors. To study the visibility of neurosurgery scholars in terms of social media metrics, the following altmetric indicators were used: Mendeley readers, the post count of news, tweets, blogs, LinkedIn, and Facebook. The methodology and procedures employed included descriptive statistics, chi-square test, two-sample proportion test, and analysis of covariance. The results demonstrated that the number of female scholars was significantly lower compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, female neurosurgery scientists were found to be slightly less prolific in terms of scientific productivity. However, women were slightly more visible with regard to citations, readership, and tweets. Finally, both genders were similarly successful in terms of receivingmentions from blogs, news, Facebook, or LinkedIn. © The Author(s) 2018.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and bibliometrics: A review
    (De Gruyter Saur, 2020)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    This study provides a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the main bibliometric indicators in relation to gender and the underlying factors which have an effect on the research productivity and impact of female and male scholars. The main indicators studied in the literature were the number of publications, the number of citations, self-citations, Journal Impact Factor, h-Index, authorship positions, and collaboration patterns. The literature on the visibility of scholars from the point of social media metrics has also been appraised. Underlying factors have a complex and inconclusive impact on productivity. The literature was divided into two groups, based on personal and structural factors. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research on women in science and higher education: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    ;
    Villarroya, A.
    ;
    Barrios, M.
    The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price’s, Lotka’s, and Bradford’s laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field. © 2015, Kluwer Academic Publishers.