PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

End date: 2019Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 42
  • 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,
    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 Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool: exposing gender bias and gender inequities in health research Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2017)
    Morgan, T.
    ;
    Williams, L.A.
    ;
    Gott, M.
    Quality appraisal tools used in systematic reviews to evaluate health literature do not adequately address issues related to gender. This oversight is significant because disparities between genders have been identified as a major health equity concern, and systematic reviews are regarded as a powerful means for informing policy that could redress gender inequities. In this paper, we present our Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool that offers researchers a template to undertake a comprehensive gendered analysis of studies they review. Informed by a feminist perspective, the tool addresses issues of power, gender and inequity, thereby giving researchers the means to interrogate the scientific rigour of systematic reviews that focus on gender. Specifically, our tool outlines ways gender can be critically examined in terms of study design, data collection, analysis, discussion and recommendations. We argue that this tool has the potential to improve the provision of public health by providing solid understandings and critical reflections on the reasons why women continue to face barriers in their access to optimal health care. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Mauleón, E.
    ;
    Hillán, L.
    ;
    Moreno, L.
    ;
    Gómez, I.
    ;
    Bordons, M.
    The study of journal authorship and editorial board membership from a gender perspective is addressed in this paper following international recommendations about the need to obtain science and technology indicators by gender. Authorship informs us about active scientists who contribute to the production and dissemination of new knowledge through journal articles, while editorial board membership tells us about leading scientists who have obtained scientific recognition within the scientific community. This study analyses by gender the composition of the editorial boards of 131 high-quality Spanish journals in all fields of science, the presence of men and women as authors in a selection of 36 journals, and the evolution of these aspects from 1998 to 2009. Female presence is lower than male presence in authorship, editorial board membership and editorship. The presence of female authors is slightly lower than the presence of women in the Spanish Higher Education sector and doubles female presence in editorial boards, which mirrors female presence in the highest academic rank. The gender gap tends to diminish over the years in most areas, especially in authorship and very slightly in editorial board membership. Large editorial boards and having a female editor-in-chief are positively correlated with women presence in editorial boards. The situation of women in Spanish science is further assessed in an international context analysing a selection of international reference journals. The usefulness of journal-based indicators to monitor the situation of men and women in science and to assess the success of policies oriented to enhance gender equality in science is finally discussed. © 2012 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Marini, G.
    ;
    Meschitti, V.
    In this paper we aim to understand if gender makes a difference in the path to promotion to full professor in Italian universities, drawing on data from 2013 to 2016. The new promotion system pursuant Gelmini Law (210/2010) in Italy implies to go through two steps. First, they have to obtain the national ASN system (fit-for-the-role national filter), based on merit measured via bibliometric and non-bibliometric indicators. This step does not mean to get a position, it only means to be able to apply for it at institutional level. We believe that discrimination based on gender may happen especially at institutional level as in comparison to ASN there is less transparency and more autonomy at institutional level. It is also hypothesised that discrimination based on gender may differ according to the percentage of women already at full professor rank by disciplinary field. We investigate gender inequality using a binary variable (promoted or not promoted along 2013 until 2016) controlling by scientific productivity, normalised number of available vacancies, result of national research evaluation (VQR—department of candidate’s affiliation), age, current rank-and-file position. Multilevel logistic regression demonstrates that among those who obtained the ASN and at parity of other conditions, men have around 24% more probability to be promoted at parity of scientific production, which reveals a relevant gender discrimination. Our findings have implications on theory about inequality regimes and might serve to reflect on how to improve practices at institutional level. © 2018, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • 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,
    Journals invite too few women to referee Open PDF 
    (Nature Publishing Group, 2017)
    Lerback, Jory
    ;
    Hanson, Brooks
    Jory Lerback and Brooks Hanson present an analysis that reveals evidence of gender bias in peer review for scholarly publications.