PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Nielsen, M.W.Language: search.filters.language.English

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Nielsen, M.W.
    ;
    Andersen, J.P.
    ;
    Schiebinger, L.
    ;
    Schneider, J.W.
    Gender and sex analysis is increasingly recognized as a key factor in creating better medical research and health care 1-7. Using a sample of more than 1.5 million medical research papers, our study examined the potential link between women's participation in medical science and attention to gender-related and sex-related factors in disease-specific research. Adjusting for variations across countries, disease topics and medical research areas, we compared the participation of women authors in studies that do and do not involve gender and sex analysis. Overall, our results show a robust positive correlation between women's authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis. These findings corroborate discussions of how women's participation in medical science links to research outcomes, and show the mutual benefits of promoting both the scientific advancement of women and the integration of gender and sex analysis into medical research. © 2017 The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and citation impact in management research Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Nielsen, M.W.
    This study investigates the extent to which a gender gap exists in the citation rates of management researchers. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 26,783 publications and 65,436 authorships, we illuminate possible differences in women's and men's average citation impact per paper, adjusting for covariation attributable to geographical setting, institutional reputation, self-citations, collaborative patterns and journal prestige. We find a marginal difference in citation impact in favor of women management scholars. Women are also slightly more likely than men to author articles among the top-10% most cited in their field. Yet given the sensitivity of our results to uncertainties in the data, these variations should not be overgeneralized. In the large picture, differences in citation rates appear to be a negligible factor in the reproduction of gender inequalities in management research. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequality and research performance: moving beyond individual-meritocratic explanations of academic advancement Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Nielsen, M.W.
    Academic debates addressing the persistent gender gap in science reveal considerable contestation of the relevance and extent of the problem. Particular attention has been given to the question of whether women's high attrition rates should be ascribed to the structural and cultural barriers inherent to the academic system or instead individualistic matters, such as personal motivation, performance and merit. In order to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this particular issue, this cross-sectional bibliometric study investigates the link between gender and research performance in the Danish context. More specifically, it compares the citation and self-citation rates, source normalized impact per publication scores and collaborative patterns of 3293 male and female researchers at a Danish university and provides evidence challenging the widespread assumption of a persistent performance gap in favour of male researchers. The result has implications for research organizations and managers, as it raises concerns about the validity of individual-meritocratic explanations of the skewed gender distributions in academia. © 2015 Society for Research into Higher Education.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Nielsen, M.W.
    This article investigates the extent to which the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI) reflects the performance of men and women differently. The model is based on a differentiated counting of peer-reviewed publications, awarding three and eight points for contributions to ‘well-regarded’ and highly selective journals and book publishers, and 1 and 5 points for equivalent scientific contributions via ‘normal level’ channels. On the basis of bibliometric data, the study shows that the BRI considerably widens the existing gender gap in researcher performance, since men on average receive more BRI points for their publications than women. The article suggests two probable explanations: (A) women merely comprise 24% of the committee members determining which publication channels to classify as ‘well-regarded’ and ‘normal’, which may lead to biases in the classification process. (B) The model privileges collaborative research, which disadvantages women due to gender differences in collaborative network relations. © 2015 Society for Research into Higher Education.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Andersen, J.P.
    ;
    Nielsen, M.W.
    ;
    Simone, N.L.
    ;
    Lewiss, R.E.
    ;
    Jagsi, R.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women’s representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men. © Andersen et al.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Andersen, J.P.
    ;
    Nielsen, M.W.
    Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do Google Scholar and Web of Science reflect women's and men's scholarly impact differently? A comparison of U.S. Researchers in sociology and economics Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Andersen, J.P.
    ;
    Nielsen, M.W.
    Several studies have demonstrated differences in Google Scholars' and Web of Science's coverage of citing publications. In this paper, we examine whether citation data retrieved from Web of Science and Google Scholar reflect women's and men's scholarly impact differently. Our study is based on a sample of 200 randomly selected U.S. authors in economics- and sociology-related research areas. Our results illustrate noteworthy gender disparities in the per-paper citation rates across the two databases. In sociology, we find that women benefit more than men, when impact assessments are based on data from Google Scholar, while the opposite is the case in economics. If our results prove to be robust in a larger data-set, based on a more exhaustive matching of documents, they illustrate how the selection of data-sources can have consequences for how individual scholars are assessed, e.g. in tenure or grant review evaluations.