PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Eloy, J.A.Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in scholarly productivity within academic gynecologic oncology departments Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Hill, E.K.
    ;
    Blake, R.A.
    ;
    Emerson, J.B.
    ;
    Svider, P.
    ;
    Eloy, J.A.
    OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual's h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author's scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS: Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. Teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION: Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions. © 2015 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity among US anaesthesiologists: Are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity? Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Pashkova, A.A.
    ;
    Svider, P.F.
    ;
    Chang, C.Y.
    ;
    Diaz, L.
    ;
    Eloy, J.A.
    Introduction The h-index is an objective indicator of research productivity and influence on scholarly discourse within a discipline. It may be a valuable adjunct for measuring research productivity, a key component in decisions regarding appointment and promotion in academic medicine. The objectives of this analysis were to (1) examine whether there are gender disparities in research productivity among academic anaesthesiologists, and (2) compare results to measures of research productivity in other specialties. Methods A bibliometric analysis of faculty members from 25 academic anaesthesiology departments was performed using the Scopus database. Academic anaesthesiologists were organised by academic rank and gender. The h-index and publication range (in years) of faculty members were calculated. Results Male anaesthesiologists had higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than female colleagues. Organised by rank, this difference was noted only among full professors. Men had higher overall and early-career research productivity, while women had mid-career research productivity rates equivalent to and surpassing that of their male colleagues. Gender disparities in research productivity were also noted among a sample of academic physicians in other specialties. Conclusions While men had higher overall research productivity, women had equivalent or higher mid-career research output, suggesting that early-career considerations unique to women should be taken into account during appointment and promotion in academic anaesthesiology. While disparities in gender representation among anaesthesiologists have also been noted in Europe, further study as to whether these differences also extend to research productivity and academic promotion outside of the US would be of interest. © 2013 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.