PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2019Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Grants & Awards

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic Surgical Oncologists’ Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Nguyen, V.
    ;
    Marmor, R.A.
    ;
    Ramamoorthy, S.L.
    ;
    Blair, S.L.
    ;
    Clary, B.M.
    Background: A scholar’s h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. Results: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). Conclusions: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers. © 2018, Society of Surgical Oncology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The foundation and consequences of gender bias in grant peer review processes Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Morgan, Rosemary
    ;
    Hawkins, Kate
    ;
    Lundine, Jamie
    KEY POINTS Gender bias within the research grant review process worldwide is a manifestation of historical and systemic gender bias within academic institutions and beyond. For many reasons, women are underrepresented in academic leadership; their research is less frequently cited than that of men; and they may enjoy less credit for their published work than their male coauthors. Efforts to overhaul processes of research grant peer review must go hand in hand with larger projects that aim to shift traditional gender norms in academia through institutional policies that recognize gender bias and act to counter it.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A new approach to funding acknowledgment field in the Spanish case: Can be used to identify gender gap in research funding?
    (International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2019)
    Mauleón, E.
    ;
    Bautista-Puig, N.
    Funding Acknowledgments (FA) in research publications is a way to express gratitude to the different entities who funded or contributed somehow to the research. However, there are few studies that address the issue of gender gap funding by using the field ‘Funding Acknowledgments’ (FA) on the Web of Science (WoS). The objectives of this study are three-fold: • Quantify the presence of men and women in scientific publications as a result of funded and non-funded research. • Describe funding patterns in the area of ‘Green & Sustainable Science & Technology’ by gender. • Analyse funding effect in scientific publications by men and women through collaboration, impact and visibility
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Marsh, H.W.
    ;
    Jayasinghe, U.W.
    ;
    Bond, N.W.
    Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Rare Case of Gender Parity in Academia Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lynn, F.B.
    ;
    Noonan, M.C.
    ;
    Sauder, M.
    ;
    Andersson, M.A.
    In academia, women trail men in nearly every major professional reward, such as earnings, publications, and funding. Bibliometric studies, however, suggest that citations are unique with regard to gender inequality: female penalties have been reported, but gender parity or even female premiums are routinely documented as well. Two questions follow from this puzzle. First, does gender matter for citations in sociology and neighboring social science disciplines? No theoretically informed study of gender and citations exists for the social science core. We begin to fill this gap by analyzing roughly 10,000 publications in economics, political science, and sociology. In contrast to many big data studies, we estimate the effect of author gender on citations alongside other author-, article-, journal-, and (sub)field-level predictors. Our results strongly suggest that when male and female authors publish articles that are comparably positioned to receive citations, their publications do in fact accrue citations at the same rate. This finding raises a second question: Why would gender matter "everywhere but here"? We hypothesize that the answer is related to the mechanisms (e.g., self-selection, biased assessments of commitment) that are activated in the context of some professional rewards but not citations. We discuss why a null gender finding should not be discarded as an anomaly but rather approached as an analytical opportunity. © 2019 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Medical Student Research Awards: A 13-Year Study from the Yale School of Medicine Open PDF 
    (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2018)
    King, J.T.
    ;
    Angoff, N.R.
    ;
    Forrest, J.N.
    ;
    Justice, A.C.
    Purpose The Liaison Committee on Medical Education mandates instruction in research conduct, and many U.S. Medical schools require students to complete a research project. All Yale School of Medicine (YSM) graduating students submit a research thesis, and ∼5% are awarded highest honors. Gender disparities exist in areas related to physician research productivity, including academic rank, research funding, and publications. The authors asked whether gender disparities exist for medical student research. Method The authors conducted a retrospective review of 1,120 theses submitted by graduating medical students from 2003 to 2015 at YSM and collected data on gender, mentoring, research type, sponsoring department, and other characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling examined gender differences in medical student research awards. Results Women authored 50.9% of theses, but earned only 30.9% of highest honors awards (OR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.74). Among factors associated with increased receipt of highest honors that differed by gender, men were more likely than women to work with a mentor with a history of three or more thesis honorees, take a fifth year of study, secure competitive research funding, undertake an MD-master of health science degree, and conduct laboratory research (all P <.001). After adjustment for these factors, and for underrepresented in medicine status and sponsoring department, women remained less likely to receive highest honors (OR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.98). Conclusions Women YSM students were less likely to receive highest honors for medical research. Gender disparities in postgraduate biomedical research success may start during undergraduate medical education. © 2018 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Health policy, 2018)
    Zhou, Charlie D.
    ;
    Head, Michael G.
    ;
    Marshall, Dominic C.
    ;
    Gilbert, Barnabas J.
    ;
    El-Harasis, Majd A.
    Objectives To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data. Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Characterizing the Impact of Women in Academic IR: A 12-Year Analysis Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Xiao, N.
    ;
    Oliveira, D.F.M.
    ;
    Gupta, R.
    Purpose: To determine the representation of female interventional radiology (IR) investigators and elucidate possible gender-specific disparities. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 4,884 original, peer-reviewed articles from 2006–2017 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for first and senior author gender, citations, and grants. Results: We found that 84% of first authors and 91.4% of senior authors were male (P <.01). No significant difference was observed versus expected in terms of author gender collaboration combinations (P = 1.00). Each year reflected a 0.3%–0.4% increase in articles published by women (first author: B-value: 0.3, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.4, P =.01). No difference was observed in citations or grants received between genders. Female authors received increasing citations and grants each year (citations: first author: B-value: 0.24, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.16, P =.15; grants: B-value: 0.88, P =.02). Conclusions: Women are equally as productive as men as determined by metrics such as number of publications, citations, and grants and are proportionally represented in the literature. No data indicating collaborative or citation/grant discrimination were observed, suggesting that the academic IR community is inclusive of its female constituents and equally respects their research contributions. Based on the statistically significant increases in female authorship observed in this 12-year study, this article reports encouraging trends for the future of women in interventional radiology. © 2018 SIR
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in CIHR Foundation grant awarding Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Witteman, H.O.
    ;
    Hendricks, M.
    ;
    Straus, S.
    ;
    Tannenbaum, C.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Witteman, Holly O
    ;
    Hendricks, Michael
    ;
    Straus, Sharon
    ;
    Tannenbaum, Cara
    Background Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator. Methods We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria. Findings Overall application success across competitions was 15·8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0·9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2·0 lower–0·2 higher; odds ratio 0·934, 95% CI 0·854–1·022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0·9 percentage points (3·2 lower–1·4 higher; 0·998, 0·794–1·229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4·0 percentage points (6·7 lower–1·3 lower; 0·705, 0·519–0·960). Interpretation Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review. Funding None.