PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2009Subject: search.filters.subject.Peer Review

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women involvement in editorial boards of mathematics journals
    (2007)
    Mauleón, E.
    ;
    Bordons, M.
    Members of editorial boards of journals play an essential role in science, since they contribute to guarantee the quality and relevance of publications. This study analyses whether women are well represented in editorial boards as a sign of her participation in responsibility positions in science. Women's representation on the editorial board of eight international high quality mathematics journals is studied and compared to women's presence as authors of papers in the same journals. On average only 4% of the members of the editorial boards analysed were women, while 10% of the authors with publications were female scientists. Inter-gender differences in impact of publications were not found, but less collaboration was observed in female publications. This study shows that women are under-represented as authors in Mathematics journals but her presence is even lower in leadership positions such as members of journal editorial boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology Open PDF 
    (2005)
    Kliewer, Mark A.
    ;
    Freed, Kelly S.
    ;
    DeLong, David M.
    ;
    Pickhardt, Perry J.
    ;
    Provenzale, James M.
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for each reviewer. We also sent a questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer. The demographic profiles were correlated with the average quality score for each reviewer. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and analysis of variance modeling. Reviewer quality scores were also correlated with the scoring of individual reviews and ultimate disposition of 196 manuscripts sent to the AJR during the same period. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 821 reviewers (83.0%), for whom quality scores were available for 714 (87.0%). Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (p = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (p = 0.72), years of reviewing (p = 0.26), academic rank (p = 0.10), or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (p = 0.40). The quality score of the reviewers showed no variation by subspecialty (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The highest-rated AJR reviewers tended to be young and from academic institutions. The quality of peer review did not correlate with the sex, academic rank, or subspecialty of the reviewer.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientific Impact of Women in Academic Surgery Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Housri, N.
    ;
    Cheung, M.C.
    ;
    Koniaris, L.G.
    ;
    Zimmers, T.A.
    Objective: To evaluate the scientific impact of women in the surgical literature. Methods: Gender of the principal investigator of every abstract presented at the 2002, 2003, and 2004 annual meetings of the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons was identified by internet search. Resulting publications were identified using PubMed. Journal impact factor and number of article citations were determined using ISI Web of Knowledge. Results: The principal investigator's gender was identified for 649 (98.8%) of the 657 abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 AAS meetings. Women authored 9.1% of abstracts and 11.8% of total resulting publications. The publication rate of abstracts by women was significantly higher than that of men (69.5% versus 52.4%, P = 0.0132). There was a trend toward higher average impact factors of journals in which female authors published (3.265 versus 2.673, P = 0.0626). There was no significant difference in mean number of citations per publication. The principal investigator's gender was identified for all 337 (100%) abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 SUS meetings. Women authored 11.0% of abstracts and 11.2% of resulting publications. Publication rates and average citation numbers were similar for female and male authors. The average impact factors of journals in which women published were significantly higher (4.741 versus 3.348, P = 0.0082). Conclusions: Although women comprise a small proportion of principal investigators on abstracts presented at these conferences, the quality of their presented work is equal to or better than those of their male counterparts. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in the refereeing process? Open PDF 
    (2002)
    Tregenza, Tom
    Scientists are measured by their publications. Yet anonymous peer review is far from transparent. Does bias lurk within the refereeing process? Investigating the outcomes of manuscript submissions suggests that the overall process is not sexist, but differences in acceptance rates across journals according to gender of the first author give grounds for caution. Manuscripts with more authors and by native English speakers are more successful; whether this is due to bias remains to be seen.
  • 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Open PDF 
    (2003)
    Del Carmen Davo, M.
    ;
    Vives, C.
    ;
    Alvarez-Dardet, C.
    The quality of peer review is an essential part of the scientific process1 and nowadays its evaluation is an emergent area of research. The gender perspective is however, still rarely integrated in this kind of study. There is empirical evidence about sex bias in choosing referees. Women are still less required by editors than men in peer review processes. As other studies have shown, male reviewers took significantly longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts and male reviewers recommend acceptance and rejection at higher rates than their female counterparts, who were more prone to revisions. The under use of women as reviewers seems then not justified by any quality criteria, as has been shown as well by the measurement of variables of time to answer and referees recommendations to authors. In addition, the promotion of gender parity in the peer review process could contribute to a reduction in the traditional invisibility of women in scientific knowledge development. This study has been done with the main objective to detect gender bias in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) peer review process and to identify differences, if any, between peer reviews with a gender perspective. The analysis includes the editors perceived quality of the review plus the other variables suggested by other studies as time to answer and referees recommendations to authors.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Bornmann, L.
    ;
    Mutz, R.
    ;
    Daniel, H.-D.
    The universalism norm of the ethos of science requires that contributions to science are not excluded because of the contributors' gender, nationality, social status, or other irrelevant criteria. Here, a generalized latent variable modeling approach is presented that grant program managers at a funding organization can use in order to obtain indications of potential sources of bias in their peer review process (such as the applicants' gender). To implement the method, the data required are the number of approved and number of rejected applicants for grants among different groups (for example, women and men or natural and social scientists). Using the generalized latent variable modeling approach indications of potential sources of bias can be examined not only for grant peer review but also for journal peer review. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2007)
    Bornmann, L.
    ;
    Mutz, R.
    ;
    Daniel, H.-D.
    Narrative reviews of peer review research have concluded that there is negligible evidence of gender bias in the awarding of grants based on peer review. Here, we report the findings of a meta-analysis of 21 studies providing, to the contrary, evidence of robust gender differences in grant award procedures. Even though the estimates of the gender effect vary substantially from study to study, the model estimation shows that all in all, among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than women by about 7%. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.