PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 1999Subject: search.filters.subject.United States

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Promotion of Women Physicians in Academic Medicine: Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Open PDF 
    (1995)
    Tesch, B.J.
    ;
    Wood, H.M.
    ;
    Helwig, A.L.
    ;
    Nattinger, A.B.
    To assess possible explanations for the finding that the percentage of women medical school faculty members holding associate or full professor rank remains well below the percentage of men. —Cross-sectional survey of physician faculty of US medical schools using the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database. —Surveyed were 153 women and 263 men first appointed between 1979 and 1981, matched for institutions of original faculty appointment. —Academic rank achieved, career preparation, academic resources at first appointment, familial responsibilities, and academic productivity. —After a mean of 11 years on a medical school faculty, 59% of women compared with 83% of men had achieved associate or full professor rank, and 5% of women compared with 23% of men had achieved full professor rank. Women and men reported similar preparation for an academic career, but women began their careers with fewer academic resources. The number of children was not associated with rank achieved. Women worked about 10% fewer hours per week and had authored fewer publications. After adjustment for productivity factors, women remained less likely to be associate or full professors (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.66) or to achieve full professor rank (adjusted OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63). Based on the AAMC database, 50% of both women and men originally appointed as faculty members between 1979 and 1981 had left academic medicine by 1991. —Women physician medical school faculty are promoted more slowly than men. Gender differences in rank achieved are not explained by productivity or by differential attrition from academic medicine. (JAMA. 1995;273:1022-1025). © 1995, Jama, All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example Open PDF 
    (1998)
    Dickersin, K.
    ;
    Fredman, L.
    ;
    Flegal, K. M.
    ;
    Scott, J. D.
    ;
    Crawley, B.
    CONTEXT: Editors, authors, and reviewers are influential in shaping science. The careers of women in public health have received less scrutiny than those of women in medicine and other branches of science. The performance of women as editors, authors, and reviewers in epidemiology has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes over time in the representation of women at the editorial level in US epidemiology journals compared with the proportion of women authors and reviewers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of 4 US epidemiology journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, Annals of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (formerly the Journal of Chronic Diseases), for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1994. SUBJECTS: Editors, authors, and reviewers for the selected years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sex of editors, authors, and reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 2415 reports associated with 8005 authors. One of 7 editors in chief was a woman, a position she shared with a man. For all journals, the proportion of editors who were women ranged from 5 (6.5%) of 77 in 1982 to 42 (16.3%) of 258 in 1994. Over all journals and all years, women comprised a higher proportion of authors (28.7% [2225/7743]) compared with reviewers (26.7% [796/2982]) or editors (12.8% [89/696]). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer women in public health hold editorial positions than are authors and reviewers. The reasons for this important discrepancy, including the possibility of a selection bias favoring men, should be further investigated.