PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, FaisalSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Equity

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF 
    (California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
    Manes, Akash
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Knight, Starr
    ;
    Raja, Ali S.
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty Open PDF 
    (American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), 2026-01)
    Qazi, Shurjeel Uddin
    ;
    Cawse-Lucas, Jeanne
    ;
    Hussain, Mehwish
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    INTRODUCTION: The present study investigated the current trends of gender disparity in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding patterns for research within Family Medicine. METHODS: Funding data was collected from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) system for fiscal years 2017-2020, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was retrieved from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. RESULTS: We analyzed 730 grants in our analysis. Amongst them, 398 (54.5%) were awarded to women PIs and 332 (45.5%) to men PIs. The mean NIH grant amount awarded to men PIs (518,862±490,793.32) was significantly higher than the mean grant amount awarded to women PIs (450,195±428,405.62) (p = 0.04). The strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the number of publications of men PIs. When the gender of PI and co-PI were analyzed together, there was no significant difference in the number of grants or mean grant amount. Stratification by academic degree revealed no significant difference between both genders for the mean NIH grant amount. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing representation of women within the discipline of family medicine, men continue to receive higher average NIH grant amounts compared to women. The differences are multifactorial and may include differences in academic productivity or grant committees' heuristics. Overall, the results were promising with little evidence of significant gender disequilibrium within NIH-funding for researchers in FM.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership and Research Productivity Among Canadian Anesthesiology Faculty
    (2020)
    Esslinger, Eric N.
    ;
    Van der Westhuizen, Michael
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Masud, Sarmad
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Purpose Despite increasing numbers of women entering anesthesiology training, women remain underrepresented in senior academic positions and leadership roles. This study aims to determine the extent of gender disparity in Canadian departments of anesthesiology. In addition, we explore the correlation between publication productivity and academic rank in this cohort. Methods The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) was queried to identify 17 training programs for anesthesiology. Department websites were searched to determine the names of faculty members, as well as gender, leadership roles, and academic ranks. The SCOPUS© database was used to generate the number of publications, number of citations, publication range, and h-index of each faculty member. Results In our study cohort of 1404 academic anesthesiologists, 30.1% were women. Women held a minority of 130 leadership positions (27%, n = 35). With increasing academic rank female representation decreased (p = 0.009), such that 21% of full professors were women. Overall, male anesthesiologists had a higher h-index, number of publications, and number of citations (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, and p = <0.001, respectively) than women. Conclusion Despite growing numbers of women entering the academic workforce, women are underrepresented in senior academic ranks and leadership positions. In addition, men and women have significant differences in measures of publication productivity. This study underscores the importance of directed efforts to promote equity in career outcomes.