PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 79
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Study of Gender Equality in Information Sciences Research Institutions in Lithuania
    (Springer International Publishing, 2017)
    Limanauskiene, Virginija
    ;
    Rutkauskiene, Danguole
    ;
    Kersiene, Vitalija
    ;
    Bareisa, Eduardas
    ;
    Damasevicius, Robertas
    The aim of this paper is to define the problem and to present the gender equality gaps existing in Information Sciences and Technology (IST) research institutions in Lithuania and to deeply analyze the problem in case study. The paper presents some research results of the ongoing H2020-EU.5.b. project EQUAL-IST Gender Equality Plans for Information Sciences and Technology Research Institutions (2016–2019). We analyzed the works of different authors and selected the factors that limit successful scientific carrier in the IST research: gender stereotypes in labor market, unconscious bias among managers, work- life balance, women’s confidence and aspirations. In paper we provide evidence of findings by statistical data of Lithuania. Among all the countries, Lithuania has a gear average of young people looking for a career in computing or engineering, but women are paid less salary; IST economics sector and research of Lithuania needs talented qualified women and men. We analyze students’ gender equality context in Informatics Faculty KTU: amounts of students, degrees of graduates, correlation with study programs. Also we provide results of analysis of staff structure, gender distribution, wages.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley Open PDF 
    (American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1975-02-07)
    Bickel, P. J.
    ;
    Hammel, E. A.
    ;
    O'Connell, J. W.
    Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF 
    (2018)
    O'Connor, Erin E.
    ;
    Chen, Pauline
    ;
    Weston, Brian
    ;
    Anderson, Redmond
    ;
    Zeffiro, Timothy
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
  • Item type:Publication,
    What's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Nygaard, L.P.
    ;
    Bahgat, K.
    A persistent finding in studies of research productivity is the ‘gender gap’ where men seem to publish more academic research than women. However, this gap varies widely from study to study, and little has been done to explore how these claims might be sensitive to what is being measured and how. Using a dataset of publications statistics spanning five years for a Norwegian social science research institute, this paper looks at how (and why) measuring productivity in different ways provides different pictures of the gender gap. Based on the situated context of the institute, we also disaggregate the data by staff category, methodological orientation, and language background, and consider the impact of leaves of absence. We find widely varying measures of the gender gap depending on how we measure and disaggregate, and argue that different bibliometric indicators capture different aspects of research performance, including diversity of output and collaboration, which reflect different publication practices that are both gendered and situated. We suggest that looking at academic writing as a situated - and gendered - social practice offers a potential for deriving more theoretically consistent explanations for both the seeming persistence of the gender gap and the wide contextual variations. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientific Performance Assessments Through a Gender Lens: a Case Study on Evaluation and Selection Practices in Academia
    (2018)
    Nielsen, Matthias Wullum
    The focus on excellence and quality assurance in the academy has spawned a significant increase in the use of bibliometric measures in performance assessments of individual researchers. This article investigates the organizational consequences of this development through a gender lens. Based on a qualitative case study of evaluation and selection practices at a Danish university, a number of potential gender biases related to the use of bibliometric performance measures are identified. By taking as default the research preferences, approaches and career paths of a succesful group of predominantly male scholars, evaluators using bibliometrics risk disadvantaging candidates diverging from the norm with implications for gender stratification. Despite these potential biases, bibliometric measures come to function as technologies supporting a managerial narrative of the gender-blind organization. They adhere to the prevailing ethos of the academic meritocracy by standardizing the criteria for organizational advancement and ensuring transparency and accountability in the selection process. While bibliometric tools in this sense may lead to the recruitment of scientists with a strong CV and track record, they may at the same time prevent many talented researchers diverging from the norm from being recognized and succeed as academics.
  • 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,
    A Systematic Review of Gender-Based Differences in Hirsch Index Among Academic Surgeons Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Myers, S.P.
    ;
    Reitz, K.M.
    ;
    Wessel, C.B.
    ;
    Neal, M.D.
    ;
    Corbelli, J.A.
    Background: The h-index is a commonly used bibliometric in academic medicine which enumerates the number of publications (h) that have been cited h times. Recent investigations have suggested that gender-based differences in h-index may exist among academic physicians. We systematically reviewed studies of academic surgeons’ h-index, hypothesizing that a significant difference would exist between the h-index of men and women at all academic ranks. Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles authored by academic surgeons of any subspecialization in the United States between January 1, 2006, and November 20, 2017, were reviewed. We excluded studies of trainees or gender-based differences in funding without mention of h-index. Two reviewers assessed article quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Pooled estimates of standard mean differences (SMD) in h-index between genders were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. A subgroup analysis based on the academic rank was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of study on h-index. Meta-regression identified whether surgical specialty contributed to heterogeneity. Results: Twelve articles comparing h-index between genders were selected from 7950. Men possessed higher h-indices than women (SMD, 0.547; P &lt; 0.001; I 2 = 89.5%). Men exhibited higher h-indices at the assistant rank (SMD, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.24; P = 0.039) but not at the associate (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.33; P = 0.165) or full professor (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to −0.31; P = 0.25) ranks. Conclusions: The h-index is higher for men than that for women in academic surgery overall but not at individual ranks. Further investigations are necessary to address limitations in h-index and to further characterize the relationship between h-index, gender, and promotion. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review
    (bioRxiv, 2019)
    Murray, Dakota
    ;
    Siler, Kyle
    ;
    Larivière, Vincent
    ;
    Chan, Wei Mun
    ;
    Collings, Andrew M.
    The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis Author summary Peer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily —a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Glass Ceiling or Iron Cage: Women in UK Academia Open PDF 
    (1994)
    Morley, L.
    This paper reviews some of the literature on women's position in the academic workforce in the UK, and considers an informal study conducted by the author of 12 women academics. A central consideration is the relationship between women's quantitative under‐representation in the academy and women academics' self‐concept and consciousness of their own abilities. Copyright © 1994, Wiley Blackwell. All rights reserved