PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2020Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender Inequality

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 27
  • Item type:Publication,
    Monitoring the gender gap in the coverage of biology professors on Wikipedia Open PDF 
    (The Royal Society, 2026-05-27)
    Alvarez-Ponce, David
    ;
    Iyengar, Niveda
    Women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, especially in senior positions. One known reason is the limited visibility of female scientists, which discourages young women from entering STEM fields, thus perpetuating the gender gap. A number of studies have shown that women, including those in academia, are less likely to have a Wikipedia biography than their male counterparts, and that, when they have a biography, it tends to be underdeveloped. Since Wikipedia informs a large portion of society on a daily basis-especially young people-who is covered on the platform, and who is excluded from it, matters. Therefore, a number of projects have been created to increase women's coverage on Wikipedia. Using a recently generated census of 2104 female and 3721 male tenured and tenure-eligible faculty members affiliated with the biology departments of all United States R1 universities, we examined the extent to which biology faculty are covered on Wikipedia. Women in the census were significantly less likely to be featured on the platform than their male peers until 2018. However, the trend reversed in 2022, and women were 25% more likely than men to have a Wikipedia biography in 2024. In addition, women's biographies tend to be longer than those of men. Our results highlight the importance and effectiveness of projects aimed at improving women's coverage on Wikipedia.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Longitudinal Trends in Racial and Gender Representation among Academic Faculty: A Systematic Review Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-07-05)
    Jafari, Zahra
    ;
    Habibnezhad, Mohammad
    ;
    Johnstone, Marjorie
    ;
    Hickey, Ellen
    Despite ongoing efforts to improve faculty diversity, systemic barriers have historically marginalized racial and ethnic minorities, particularly women, in academic positions. This systematic review addresses a critical gap in the literature by synthesizing longitudinal trends in the racial and gender composition of academic faculty, shedding light on the evolution of these disparities over time. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, with a systematic search of five databases (Sociological Abstracts, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Gender Studies Database, and MEDLINE) conducted between 2014 and July 2024 without language restrictions. Of the 8,423 records initially identified, 52 peer-reviewed articles, predominantly from medical and health-related departments, met the inclusion criteria for review. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist, the methodological design of most included articles was assessed as high quality. Key findings revealed a general increase in the representation of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty in some fields but stagnation or decline in others, particularly at senior levels. An intersectional analysis of race and gender highlighted that URiM women face unique challenges, including lower promotion rates and higher attrition risks. While these findings point to some progress in the overall representation of URiM faculty, substantial inequities persist, particularly at leadership levels and in promotion and retention processes. These challenges are further exacerbated by intersectional factors. Future research should incorporate qualitative data to better understand barriers and guide the development of targeted interventions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in evaluating assistant professorship applicants? Evidence from harmonized survey experiments in Germany and Italy Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-02)
    Gërxhani, Klarita
    ;
    Kulic, Nevena
    ;
    Rusconi, Alessandra
    ;
    Solga, Heike
    Abstract This study investigates gender biases in the evaluation of applicants for assistant professorships in Germany and Italy. Drawing on the justification-suppression model of prejudice expression, we explore whether biases against women are expressed, suppressed, or even reversed in the appointment process, considering the different normative gender climates and gender equality strategies in the two countries. Using harmonized factorial survey experiments with professors of economics, political science, and social sciences, we found that women in Germany have an advantage both in perceived qualification for an assistant professorship and in the propensity to receive an interview invitation. In contrast, women in Italy are neither disadvantaged nor advantaged. We also examine whether gender biases exist when there is ambiguity about applicants' academic performance (co-authorship) and career commitment (parental leave). Our results reveal a co-authorship penalty and a parenthood premium in both countries, with no gender differences observed. Our exploratory country comparison suggests that Germany's proactive gender equality policies may be more effective in reducing the gender gap in assistant professor appointments compared to Italy's gender-neutral approach, by favoring equally qualified female applicants.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women's studies in the Latin American context: a bibliometric approach Open PDF 
    (F1000 Research Ltd, 2025-05-16)
    Valencia, Jackeline
    ;
    Gallegos, Ada
    ;
    Ramón Ruffner, Jeri Gloria
    ;
    Martínez-Rojas, Ezequiel
    ;
    Valencia-Arias, Alejandro
    Background Women’s studies in Latin America are transcendental because they make visible and challenge gender inequalities to achieve a more just and equitable society. However, despite this, there are still many research gaps, for which the objective is to examine the trends in research on women’s studies in Latin America. Methods An exploratory methodology based on bibliometric analysis is proposed to evaluate the scientific literature, based on the parameters of the PRISMA-2020 declaration. Results The bibliometric analysis reveals a growth in women’s studies in Latin America, reflecting its importance and relevance. Scientific production has experienced exponential growth, with leading researchers and journals. The United States and Canada lead scientific production. A change is observed in the topics addressed, focusing more on gender and equality. The thematic clusters identified highlight priority areas such as politics, institutions and representation. Conclusions Emerging keywords include neoliberalism, gender violence, political participation, female empowerment, and femicide, reflecting new concerns and challenges addressed in gender studies in Latin America.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Open access publishing probabilities based on gender and authorship structures in vietnam Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Nguyen, H.T.T.
    ;
    Nguyen, M.-H.
    ;
    Le, T.-T.
    ;
    Ho, M.-T.
    ;
    Vuong, Q.-H.
    Open access (OA) publishing is beneficial for researchers to improve recognition, representation, and visibility in academia. However, few studies have been conducted for studying the association between gender and OA publishing likelihood. Therefore, the current study explores the impacts of gender-based authorship structures on OA publishing in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Bayesian analysis was performed on a dataset of 3122 publications in social sciences and humanities. We found that publications with mixed-gender authorship were most likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31–31.65%). In contrast, the likelihood of publications with the solely male or female author(s) was lower. It is also notable that if female researcher(s) held the first-author position in an article of mixed-gender authorship, the publication would be less likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31% compared to 31.65% of male-first-author structure). In addition, publications written by a solo female author (14.19%) or a group of female authors (10.72%) had lower OA publishing probabilities than those written by a solely male author(s) (17.14%). These findings hint at the possible advantage of gender diversity and the disadvantage of gender homophily (especially female-only authorship) on OA publishing likelihood. Moreover, they show there might be some negative impacts of gender inequality on OA publishing. As a result, the notion of gender diversity, financial and policy supports are recommended to promote the open science movement. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contributions in Spanish Scientific Journals of Ancient History (1970-2020): Analysis of Authorship According to Sex/Gender
    (2022)
    Mateo Corredor, D.
    ;
    Pastor Quiles, M.
    This paper analyses the contributions published on Antiquity studies during the last half century in a selection of Spanish impact journals, taking into account the sex/gender of the authorship, its proportion and its development over time. In addition, the possible existence of differences is addressed depending on whether the contributions are of one authorship or co-authorship, as well as the position of signature in the works of more than one person. Likewise, the topic of these investigations is taken into account, with which it is intended to determine whether authorships of one sex/gender or another predominate in the different thematic areas. This study shows that the proportion of female authors is low and, furthermore, that a progressive increase in female authorship can not been observed in the last decades. © 2022 Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Liu, M.
    ;
    Zhang, N.
    ;
    Hu, X.
    ;
    Jaiswal, A.
    ;
    Xu, J.
    Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females' leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males' authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females' lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps. © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF 
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2023)
    Kyarunts, M.
    ;
    Michaelcheck, C.E.
    ;
    Kobeissi, H.
    ;
    Kallmes, D.F.
    ;
    Agid, R.
    Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2022)
    Krstacic, J.E.
    ;
    Carr, B.M.
    ;
    Yaligar, A.R.
    ;
    Kuruvilla, A.S.
    ;
    Helali, J.S.
    Introduction In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). Materials and methods Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. Results Compared to 37.23% of 2002 – 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women’s first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and coauthors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). Discussion Since 2002, this authorship “gender disparity chasm” has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet’s 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation. © 2022 Krstacic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Kamran, Rakhshan
    ;
    Jackman, Liam
    ;
    Chan, Cynthia
    ;
    Lee, Ann C.
    ;
    Kamran, Aleeza
    BACKGROUND: Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). CONCLUSION: This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.