PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Jacobs, Jeremy W.Language: search.filters.language.English

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender composition of spasticity‐related clinical practice guideline authorship positions Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2025-03-17)
    Uhlig‐Reche, Hannah
    ;
    Jacobs, Jeremy W.
    ;
    Gaspard, Christine S.
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    ;
    Verduzco‐Gutierrez, Monica
    Background The authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are considered topic experts and specialists. Studies to date have disproportionately found that women are underrepresented in CPG authorship, but no studies have investigated CPGs on spasticity published in the recent literature. Objective To determine the gender composition of author positions on spasticity‐related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023. Design Retrospective review of literature. Setting Systematic literature search using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL databases for spasticity‐related CPGs available in English and published between 2014 and 2023. Participants Authorship positions on spasticity‐related CPGs published during the defined study period. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Gender composition of all author positions and physician author positions on spasticity‐related CPGs published from 2014 to 2023 were compared with parity and equity benchmarks. The binomial test was used to assess for a difference in the observed versus expected distribution (parity) and the N – 1 χ2 test was used to compare the gender proportions of authorship positions with the gender proportions of the equity benchmarks. Results Six CPGs on spasticity were published during the study period. Most author positions were held by women (54.5%), whereas most physician author positions were held by men physicians (63%). Men physicians held significantly more positions compared with parity (p = .016). Women were overrepresented among all author positions compared with equity using total U.S. academic medicine faculty in neurology/physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) at all benchmark years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2014: 7.7–23.5; 2018: 4.2–20.0; 2022: 1.4–17.2). There was no difference in the gender composition of physician authors compared with academic medicine physicians in neurology/PM&R for any benchmark year (95% CI: 2014: −8.3 to 11.6; 2018: −2.0 to 7.9; 2022: −4.7 to 5.2). Conclusions Physician authorship of recent spasticity‐related CPGs comprises mostly men, a significant difference from parity but not from equity benchmarks. Women are overrepresented among total authorship positions (including nonphysicians) compared with equity, but not parity. Editorial boards should actively promote authorship diversity of these influential guidelines to minimize gender bias in health care delivery.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of editor in chief gender and associated journal variables among 126 pathology journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Wang, Dayle K.
    ;
    Clark, Landon M.
    ;
    Stephens, Laura D.
    ;
    Adkins, Brian D.
    ;
    Khan, Shazia S.
    OBJECTIVES: Gender equity studies have shown that women are underrepresented in journal editor in chief positions, which confer major professional opportunities and influence. We sought to systematically investigate editor in chief gender and journal attributes within pathology. METHODS: We constructed a journal data set using the Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports databases. We also included official journals of the major medical societies for the 12 pathology subspecialties recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The final data set included 126 journals. We obtained editor in chief gender, impact factor, publication model (ie, hybrid access vs open access), year of founding, and geographic location for all included pathology journals. RESULTS: Women made up only 18% of the 141 total editor in chief positions. This inequity was present irrespective of all pathology journal variables studied. Among 10 journals with 2 editor in chief positions, 5 had only men and 5 had 1 man and 1 woman. All 3 journals with 3 editor in chief positions had 2 men and 1 woman. CONCLUSIONS: Women are significantly underrepresented among editor in chiefs across pathology journals. Journals and affiliated members should advocate for diversity among these influential positions, given their impact on research, science, and medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Schaechter, Judith D.
    ;
    Jacobs, Jeremy W.
    ;
    Booth, Garrett S.
    ;
    Dupont, William D.
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.