PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2019Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 40
  • Item type:Publication,
    A “scientific diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a sample of life scientists Open PDF 
    (American Society for Cell Biology, 2016)
    Moss-Racusin, C.A.
    ;
    van der Toorn, J.
    ;
    Dovidio, J.F.
    ;
    Brescoll, V.L.
    ;
    Graham, M.J.
    Mounting experimental evidence suggests that subtle gender biases favoring men contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including many subfields of the life sciences. However, there are relatively few evaluations of diversity interventions designed to reduce gender biases within the STEM community. Because gender biases distort the meritocratic evaluation and advancement of students, interventions targeting instructors’ biases are particularly needed. We evaluated one such intervention, a workshop called “Scientific Diversity” that was consistent with an established framework guiding the development of diversity interventions designed to reduce biases and was administered to a sample of life science instructors (N=126) at several sessions of the National Academies Summer Institute for Undergraduate Education held nationwide. Evidence emerged indicating the efficacy of the “Scientific Diversity” work-shop, such that participants were more aware of gender bias, expressed less gender bias, and were more willing to engage in actions to reduce gender bias 2 weeks after participating in the intervention compared with 2 weeks before the intervention. Implications for diversity interventions aimed at reducing gender bias and broadening the participation of women in the life sciences are discussed. © 2016 C. A. Moss-Racusin et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are there inter-gender differences in the presence of authors, collaboration patterns and impact? (RIP)
    (2013)
    Mauleón, E.
    ;
    Bordons, M.
    This paper analyses the presence of men and women as authors and editorial board members in a selection of international scientific journals from different fields and explore potential inter-gender differences in collaboration practices and impact of research. Female presence is lower than male presence in authorship and editorial board membership in all fields and the share of women in editorial boards is lower than as authors of articles. Our results suggest there are differences in the collaboration practices of scientists by gender, since the share of women in internationally co-authored articles is lower than expected in all fields -except in Clinical Medicine-. Although large intergender differences in citation rates are not observed, women are under-represented in highly cited articles in most of the fields.
  • 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,
    A gender gap in publishing? Women's representation in edited political science books Open PDF 
    (2001)
    Mathews, A.L.
    ;
    Andersen, K.
    Academic publishing is tightly connected to college and university faculty members' prospects for promotion, tenure, salary increases, and professional recognition, and is often regarded as an index of one's scholarly contribution to a given field (Blackburn and Lawrence 1995). This is problematic because, as many researchers have clearly documented, women publish less than men. Because female faculty produce fewer publications on average than their male counterparts, they also receive lower pay and are more likely to hold the ranks of assistant and associate professor (Blackburn and Lawrence 1995; Creamer 1998; Dinauer and Ondeck 1999; Roland and Fontanesi-Seime 1996; Schneider 1998). And, although gender differences in publishing have narrowed in most disciplines over the past two decades, in most cases, men still outpublish women by a ratio of two to one (Roland and Fontanesi-Seime 1996). Among the factors cited as being important to publishing regularly are ambition, reputation, merit, institutional support and resources, professional networks and collegial/mentoring relationships, research topic and methodology, and time.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The scientometrics of successful women in science
    (2016)
    Madlock-Brown, C.
    ;
    Eichmann, D.
    This paper examines the effects of gender differences in collaboration on research outcomes. We analyzed network characteristics of seventeen medical research institutions that are Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) to determine if network connectivity characteristics have the potential to help mitigate the performance gap between the sexes. We determined betweenness centrality to identify well-connected researchers. Then we used clustering coefficient to determine how tightly connected their collaborators were with each other. We correlate these scores with productivity (number of total publications for each author), and h-index (the number of papers h for which an author has h citations). We also provide data on how network characteristics vary by role for each gender studied. Our results indicate that being well connected is more highly correlated with success for women than men for most of the institutions we studied. We believe these results can be leveraged to improve success rates for women in the future. © 2016 IEEE.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Surgery: An Evaluation of Surgical Societies Open PDF 
    (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, 2019)
    Lyons, Nicole B.
    ;
    Bernardi, Karla
    ;
    Huang, Lillian
    ;
    Holihan, Julie L.
    ;
    Cherla, Deepa
    Background: The percentage of female surgeons and surgery residents has increased slowly to 24% and 35%, respectively. However, women remain under-represented in surgical leadership positions (<20%). Society awards and leadership positions are used for hiring and promoting surgeons. We hypothesized that within the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), females are under-represented.Methods: The SIS website and databases were consulted for the number of female members, awardees, and leaders. Representation was divided into four time periods: 2000–2005, 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2017 and compared for changes over time utilizing a Χ2 test. In addition, we reviewed the council members of five other surgical societies and compared the percentage of female representation in leadership positions.Results: Since the SIS was founded, there have been 587 members of whom only 135 (23%) are female. There has been an increase in female membership over time (p < 0.001). The number of female awardees rose from 37% during the first two study periods to more than 50% in the last two periods (p = 0.002). However, female representation in leadership positions decreased from 26% in 2000–2005 to less than 15% in the last three study periods (p = 0.234). Similar disparities emerged when comparing the SIS with other surgical societies: Women have represented only 24% (range 8%–42%) of leaders and 4% (range 0–11%) of society presidents.Conclusions: Female surgeons are under-represented in the SIS membership and leadership positions. Whereas the number of female surgeons and residents has increased, these trends have not occurred with council membership and leadership within the SIS. There is a need to address this gender disparity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is science built on the shoulders of women' A study of gender differences in contributorship Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Macaluso, B.
    ;
    Larivière, V.
    ;
    Sugimoto, T.
    ;
    Sugimoto, C.R.
    Purpose Women remain underrepresented in the production of scientific literature, and relatively little is known regarding the labor roles played by women in the production of knowledge. This study examined labor roles by gender using contributorship data from science and medical journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), which require each author to indicate their contribution to one or more of the following tasks: (1) analyzed the data, (2) conceived and designed the experiments, (3) contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, (4) performed the experiments, and (5) wrote the paper. Method The authors analyzed contribution data from more than 85,000 articles published between 2008 and 2013 in PLOS journals with respect to gender using both descriptive and regression analyses. Results Gender was a significant variable in determining the likelihood of performing a certain task associated with authorship. Women were significantly more likely to be associated with performing experiments, and men were more likely to be associated with all other authorship roles. This holds true controlling for academic age: Although experimentation was associated with academically younger scholars, the gap between male and female contribution to this task remained constant across academic age. Inequalities were observed in the distribution of scientific labor roles. Conclusions These disparities have implications for the production of scholarly knowledge, the evaluation of scholars, and the ethical conduct of science. Adopting the practice of identifying contributorship rather than authorship in scientific journals will allow for greater transparency, accountability, and equitable allocation of resources. © 2016 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Can’t bibliometric analysts do better? How quality assessment without field expertise does not work: A comment on G. Madison and T. Söderlund: Comparisons of scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Lykke, N.
    The article is an invited comment on Guy Madison and Therese Söderlund (M&S): Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: Gender studies can do better. Scientometrics 115(3):1161–1183. The article pinpoints a series of serious problems in M&S’s quantitative quality assessment and analysis of the field of gender studies, pertaining to their overall conceptual framework, their general approach and their specific analysis. It is argued that the over-arching problem in M&S’s study is their lack of expert knowledge of the field of gender studies, their lack of respect for differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and their research design, which is biased towards quantitative social and natural science research. Firstly, it is demonstrated that a key concept, ‘gender perspective’, is used in an incoherent and confusing way in M&S’s analysis. Secondly, it is argued that the confusion is not an isolated definitional problem, but related to a series of slippages between M&S’s source of inspiration (Ganetz in Genusvetenskapliga projektansökningar inom humaniora-samhällsvetenskap – en uppföljning av Vetenskapsrådets beredning och utfall år 2004. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie, Stockholm 15/2005, 2005) and their own adoption of the category. Thirdly, differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and between hermeneutic and explanatory knowledge production, are discussed more broadly to sustain the argument that the mentioned slippages occur, because M&S transfer analytical tools from Ganetz’ qualitative study, based on a peer review methodology, to a quantitative quality assessment, carried out without field specific expert knowledge. It is argued that, to be adequate and relevant, a quality assessment would need to respect these differences, and develop tools and research designs accordingly. Fourthly, the validity of M&S’s content analysis—the core of their study—is questioned in detail because of its use of inadequate analytical categories, and because of its exclusion of central elements from the analysis. Finally, it is argued that the bias in M&S’s research design is reproduced in their results. © 2018, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Factors in Reviewer Recommendations for Manuscript Publication Open PDF 
    (1990)
    Lloyd, Margaret E.
    This study investigated whether the gender of manuscript authors affected reviewers' editorial decisions. Female and male reviewers for five behavioral journals were asked to evaluate identical manuscripts according to their usual criteria. Half the manuscripts were supposedly written by men and half by women. Male reviewers did not evaluate male- and female-authored manuscripts differently. Female reviewers accepted significantly more female-authored (62%) than male-authored (10%) manuscripts. Female-authored manuscripts were accepted significantly more often by female (62%) than by male (21%) reviewers. Information unrelated to the quality of the manuscript appears to have influenced reviewers' decisions. Implications for the journal review process are discussed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bias in peer review Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Lee, Carole J.
    ;
    Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
    ;
    Zhang, Guo
    ;
    Cronin, Blaise
    Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.