PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2019Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Psychology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 17
  • Item type:Publication,
    The scholarly impact of articles published by men and women in psychology journals Open PDF 
    (1990)
    Over, R.
    In considering whether men and women produce research of equal quality, it needs to be asked not whether similar numbers of important contributions come from men and women (since numerically there have been more men than women among researchers), but whether the proportion of women active in research who make important contributions is the same as the proportion of men active in research who make important contributions. A search of entries in the 1985 edition of Social Sciences Citation Index located 564 articles from psychology journals which had attracted 15 or more citations. The sex ratio among senior authors of these high-impact articles was compared with the sex-ratio among senior authors of low-impact articles published in the same journals. The majority of high-impact articles had been published by men, but so had most low-impact articles. When allowance was made for the different numerical representation of the two sexes among authors, there was no evidence that men and women differ in terms of the impact of articles they publish. The results are discussed in the context of methodological issues in evaluation of sex differences in scientific performance, as well as with reference to the limited recognition that women so far have gained for research achievement in psychology. © 1990 Akadémiai Kiadó.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mayer, S.J.
    ;
    Rathmann, J.M.K.
    Measures of research productivity have become widely used for obtaining tenure, third-party funding, and additional resources from universities. However, previous studies indicate that men might have a higher research output than women, with mixed conclusions about the factors that drive these differences. This study explores to what extent the research productivity of psychology professors in Germany is related to gender and, furthermore, how any gender gaps can be explained by controlling for individual and organizational factors. In addition, three publication dimensions (publications in top 10% journals, journal articles, and book and collection chapters) are distinguished to determine the effect of gender on research productivity as precisely as possible. A unique data set based on all full professors in psychology in Germany and their publication record in 2013 and 2014 is used (Nauthors = 294; Narticles = 2252, Nchapters = 439). Thus, this study provides a current overview of the state of research productivity in an entire discipline after researchers receive tenure and external restrictions are lessened. Our research helps to further locate the point at which gender differences in publication numbers occur. As we are the first to systematically to analyze different publication types, we are able to show that there is no difference in publication numbers for less-prestigious book chapters. However, we find significant gender differences for research productivity in academic journals that are more important for career advancement and peer recognition, even after we control for the most important individual and organizational factors that might explain gender differences. Our results point to the direction that women do research and write manuscripts, but may have different publication patterns: instead of submitting to competitive journals, they may be satisfied with less-prestigious book chapters. As publications in peer-reviewed journals are especially important for career advancement as well as peer recognition, this publication pattern may be disadvantageous for women. Overall, we conclude that additional research to understand these developments is needed that focuses on the motives and beliefs of researchers, both to improve gender equality in academia and to give women better chances to gain recognition and prestige. © 2018, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mathur, Ambika
    ;
    Cano, Annmarie
    ;
    Kohl, Michael
    ;
    Muthunayake, Nisansala S.
    ;
    Vaidyanathan, Prassanna
    It has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: A longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Lett, Elle
    ;
    Orji, Whitney U.
    ;
    Sebro, Ronnie
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in racial, ethnic, and sex representation at US medical schools across 16 specialties: internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, family practice, pathology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and dermatology. Using a novel, Census-derived statistical measure of diversity, the S-score, we quantified the degree of underrepresentation for racial minority groups and female faculty by rank for assistant, associate, and full professors from 1990-2016. METHODS: This longitudinal study of faculty diversity uses data obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster from US allopathic medical schools. The proportion of professors of racial minority groups and female faculty by rank was compared to the US population based on data from the US Census Bureau. The Roster includes data on 52,939 clinical medical faculty in 1990, and 129,545 in 2016, at the assistant professor level or higher. The primary measure used in this study was the S-score, a measure of representation based on the probability of the observed frequency of faculty from a racial/ethnic group and sex, given the racial and ethnic distribution of the US. Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals for S-score with time were used to measure trends. RESULTS: Blacks and Hispanics showed statistically significant trends (p<0.05) towards increasing underrepresentation in most specialties and are more underrepresented in 2016 than in 1990 across all ranks and specialties analyzed, except for Black females in obstetrics & gynecology. White females were also underrepresented in many specialties and in a subset of specialties trended toward greater underrepresentation. CONCLUSIONS: Current efforts to improve faculty diversity are inadequate in generating an academic physician workforce that represents the diversity of the US. More aggressive measures for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion are necessary to reach equity in academia and healthcare.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Open PDF 
    (2015)
    König, C.J.
    ;
    Fell, C.B.
    ;
    Kellnhofer, L.
    ;
    Schui, G.
    Questions about gender differences in the workplace usually attract much attention—but often generate more heat than light. To examine gender differences in several facets of scientific productivity and impact, a quantitative, scientometric approach is employed. Analyzing a sample of industrial and organizational psychologists (Nauthors = 4234; Npublications = 46,656), this study raises both questions and concerns about gender differences in research, by showing that female and male I–O psychologists differ with regard to publication output (fewer publications authored by female researchers), impact (heterogeneous, indicator-dependent gender differences), their publication career courses (male researchers’ periods of active publishing last longer and show longer interruptions), and research interests (only marginal gender differences). In order to get a glimpse of future developments, we repeated all analyses with the student subsample and found nearly no gender differences, suggesting a more gender-balanced future. Thus, this study gives an overview over the status quo of gender differences in an entire psychological sub-discipline. Future research will have to examine whether these gender differences are volitional in nature or the manifestation of external constraints. © 2015, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hsiehchen, D.
    ;
    Hsieh, A.
    ;
    Espinoza, M.
    IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contemporary psychology and women: A gender analysis of the scientific production Open PDF 
    (2019)
    González-Álvarez, J.
    ;
    Cervera-Crespo, T.
    Despite important advances made in recent decades, women are still underrepresented in science (less than 30% of authorships). This study presents a bibliometric analysis of all the Psychology articles published in 2009 included in the Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters) in order to examine the contribution of women in contemporary Psychology, their pattern of research collaboration, the scientific content and the scientific impact from a gender perspective. From a total of 90,067 authorships, gender could be identified in 74,413 (82.6%) of them, being 40,782 (54.8%) male authorships and 33,631 (45.2%) female authorships. These data corresponded to 24,477 (49.9%) individual men and 24,553 (50.1%) women, respectively. Therefore, Psychology presents gender parity in the number of authors, and a gender asymmetry in the number of authorships that it is much lower than in science in general and other specific scientific fields. In relative terms, women tend to be concentrated in the first position of the authorship by-line and much less in the last (senior) position. This double pattern suggests that age probably plays a role in (partly) explaining the slight gender disparity of authorships. © 2017 International Union of Psychological Science
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Willis, Malachi
    ;
    Jozkowski, Kristen N.
    The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in female authorship in research papers on eating disorders: 20-year bibliometric study Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Strand, M.
    ;
    Bulik, C.M.
    Background There is a clear gender gap in scientific authorship. Although the proportions of female authors in medicine and psychiatry have increased over the past decades, women are still underrepresented. Aims To analyse authorship gender trends in eating disorder research. Method First and last author gender in research articles on eating disorders during the period 1997-2016 were assessed in eating disorder specialty journals, high-impact psychiatry journals and high-impact clinical psychology journals. Results The total number of papers on eating disorders increased substantially over the observation period, although a decrease was observed in high-impact psychiatry journals. Female authorship increased in both specialty journals and high-impact psychiatry journals. Authors were significantly less likely to be female in high-impact psychiatry and clinical psychology journals than in speciality journals. Conclusions Eating disorder research has been increasingly allocated to specialty journals over the past 20 years. A consistent gender gap between specialty and high-impact journals exists. Declaration of interest C.M.B is a grant recipient from Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and has participated as a member of their scientific advisory board. These positions are unrelated to the content of this article. Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2018.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Who acknowledges who? A gender analysis
    (2019)
    Paul-Hus, A.
    ;
    Mongeon, P.
    ;
    Sainte-Marie, M.
    ;
    Larivière, V.
    Acknowledgements found in scholarly papers allow for credit attribution among non-authors—from individuals to organizations—that contributed to a piece of research. As such, they are associated with a different kind of recognition than authorship. While several studies have shown that social factors affect authorship and citation practices, few analyses have been performed on acknowledgements. Based on 878,250 acknowledgees mentioned in 291,167 papers published in 2015 retrieved from Web of Science, the objective of this work-in-progress is to better understand such credit attribution practices and how gender may influence them. Our results show that gender disparities generally found in authorship can be extended to acknowledgements, and that women are even more underrepresented in the acknowledgement than in the authors’ list of a paper. Our findings also confirm that women acknowledge proportionally more women. These results suggest that gender plays a role in the entire spectrum of credit attribution practices, from authorships to acknowledgements.