PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Khosa, FaisalViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

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,
    Emergency Medicine Journal Editorial Boards: Analysis of Gender, H-Index, Publications, Academic Rank, and Leadership Roles Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Hutchinson, Daria
    ;
    Das, Priya
    ;
    Lall, Michelle D.
    ;
    Hill, Jesse
    ;
    Fares, Saleh
    Introduction: Our goal in this study was to determine female representation on editorial boards of high-ranking emergency medicine (EM) journals. In addition, we examined factors associated with gender disparity, including board members’ academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined EM editorial boards with an impact factor of 1 or greater according to the Clarivate Journal Citations Report for a total of 16 journals. All board members with a doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine degree, or international equivalent were included, resulting in 781 included board members. We analyzed board members’ gender, academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years.Results: Gender disparity was clearly notable, with men holding 87.3% (682/781) of physician editorial board positions and women holding 12.7% (99/781) of positions. Only 6.6% (1/15) of included editorial board chiefs were women. Male editorial board members possessed higher h-indices, total citations, and more publishing years than their female counterparts. Male board members held a greater number of departmental leadership positions, as well as higher academic ranks.Conclusion: Significant gender disparity exists on EM editorial boards. Substantial inequalities between men and women board members exist in both the academic and departmental realms. Addressing these inequalities will likely be an integral part of achieving gender parity on editorial boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hafeez, Dawood M.
    ;
    Waqas, Ahmed
    ;
    Majeed, Salman
    ;
    Naveed, Sadiq
    ;
    Afzal, Khalid I.
    Gender disparity has been documented in advanced doctoral degrees, research, and academic positions, and therefore, it can logically be deduced that the gender disparity would be found in journals' editorial boards. In this study, we sought to determine the gender distribution in editorial boards of psychiatry journals worldwide. We also studied the academic achievements of editorial board members by comparing professional background, education level, and research productivity indices. We analyzed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals from Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports. Our data included 8423 editorial board members from which we randomly selected 10% editorial board members to represent the full sample for further analyses. Overall, women represented 30.4% of editorial board and approximately 30% in each category: (1) Editor-in-chief/deputies, (2) Associate/section editors, (3) Editorial board*, and (4) Advisory board. The majority (65%) of men were M.D. psychiatrists, and women (58%) were Ph.D. psychologists. Women in editorial leadership positions (Category 1 & 2) were correlated with fewer women in editorial or advisory boards. Women had half the mean number of publications than men while serving journals with approximately the same mean impact factor. Our study results show that, besides gender disparity, gender bias does not exist in the psychiatry journal editorial boards. Given the implication of the editorial board position on science, academic advancement, and networking, this disparity remains detrimental to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic psychiatry.