PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 161

Turning the Tide for Academic Women in STEM: A Postpandemic Vision for Supporting Female Scientists Open PDF
(American Chemical Society (ACS), 2021-12-01)
Shah, Anuj
;
Lopez, Isabella
;
Surnar, Bapurao
;
Sarkar, Shrita
;
Duthely, Lunthita M.
The "leaky pipeline" of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which is especially acute for academic mothers, continues to be problematic as women face continuous cycles of barriers and obstacles to advancing further in their fields. The severity and prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic both highlighted and exacerbated the unique challenges faced by female graduate students, postdocs, research staff, and principal investigators because of lockdowns, quarantines, school closures, lack of external childcare, and heightened family responsibilities, on top of professional responsibilities. This perspective provides recommendations of specific policies and practices that combat stigmas faced by women in STEM and can help them retain their careers. We discuss actions that can be taken to support women within academic institutions, journals, government/federal centers, university-level departments, and individual research groups. These recommendations are based on prior initiatives that have been successful in having a positive impact on gender equity─a central tenet of our postpandemic vision for the STEM workforce.
Female Authorship in “Women in STEM” fields: A bibliometric Analysis Open PDF
(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2026)
Swanson, Morgan E
;
Liebl, Andrea L
Women in STEM and STEM-related fields face many issues preventing their sustained inclusion and success, from as early as childhood. Many issues persist into adulthood and careers, including pay disparities, hostile workplace interactions, workload imbalances, and uneven expectations in domestic roles. A growing body of literature seeks to address and analyze female disparities by studying and publishing research related to societal and cultural issues faced by women in STEM. However, the gender of the authors of literature focusing on this type of research also matters as a woman's experience in STEM might provide a different context; equally, male allyship is imperative to furthering gains made in the field. To determine what proportion of authors publishing on female disparity in STEM fields are women, we employed a large-scale bibliometric study to examine the trends in the proportion of three metrics of female authorship on publications related to "Women in STEM" topics; specifically, we analyzed the total female authors, female first authors, and female last authors of 7240 published manuscripts. Literature published between 2000 and 2024 was accessed using a search engine with nine search terms related to issues facing women in STEM, including terms about gender parity, gender inequity, gender attrition, pay gaps, the leaky pipeline, student gender bias, and motherhood in STEM. Overall, the proportion of female authors in any position, including specifically as both first and last author, increased over the period of our study. Our results also indicate a sustained overrepresentation of female authors during the latter portions of our analysis. These results highlight an increase in female authorship on "Women in STEM" literature and demonstrate that female researchers are becoming more central in studying these topics. Although increasing female participation in subjects related to women in STEM is important for perspective, context, and solutions, male inclusion is also important to ensure buy-in in the workplace and allow an equal distribution of labor.
Advancing gender equity in gynecology and obstetrics: perspectives from the German workforce Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-08-27)
Neuhold, Jasmin
;
von Versen-Höynck, Frauke
PURPOSE: Despite the high proportion of women in medical education and clinical training, female physicians remain underrepresented in leadership and academic positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics in Germany. This study investigates structural and cultural factors contributing to this disparity and highlights trends in workforce composition and recognition in the field. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis using publicly available data from the German Federal Statistical Office and the German Medical Association (2004-2024), as well as database from the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). RESULTS: In 2023, women comprised 73% of gynecologists in Germany. Female representation declined with advancing career stage. In 2024, 82% of resident physicians at German university hospitals were women, while they held 26% of department head positions in Gynecology and Obstetrics. Female membership in the DGGG reached 75%, with 40% on the executive board. In 2022, 65% of major awards went to men, while women received most poster and lecture prizes (61%) at the biannual conference. CONCLUSIONS: While gender diversity in the clinical workforce has improved, systemic inequities persist in academic and leadership domains. Addressing these requires structural reforms, increased transparency in recruitment and promotion processes, and targeted programs supporting women's professional advancement. Enhanced visibility, mentorship, and inclusive institutional policies are essential to ensure gender-equitable development in the specialty.
Gender equality in the Italian academic context. Results from the IGEA project Open PDF
(Frontiers Media SA, 2023-02-21)
Deiana, Giovanna
;
Dettori, Marco
;
Muresu, Narcisa
;
Puci, Mariangela Valentina
;
Saderi, Laura
The Innovation for Gender Equality in Academia (IGEA) project is focused on the analysis of the gender composition in academia, on the identification of the health needs of the academic population and on the assessment of their organizational wellbeing, in order to promote equal working conditions and opportunities. The study, focused on the identification of health needs, involved the construction of an ad hoc questionnaire in order to collect the socio-demographic characteristics and the perception of working environment of the participants. Differences between males and females were evaluated by the Mann-Whitney test, and Pearson Chi-Square or Fisher exact tests as appropriate, highlighting significant differences between genders regarding the occurrence of anxiety, panic, irritation and annoyance related to work activities. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the perception of work-related anxiety/panic, showing a direct association with the difficulty in work performance and the work-related stress during the pandemic period, whereas, an indirect association was found with job satisfaction and the feeling of being appreciated by colleagues. Occupational stress can increase the risk of developing physical and mental conditions, also affecting work performance and absenteeism. It is therefore fundamental to plan targeted interventions, implement policies and specific actions, in order to avoid and reduce any differences related to gender.
Diferencias de género en Anestesiología. ¿En qué punto nos encontramos en España? Resultados de una encuesta nacional Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2020-08)
Aliaño, M.
;
Franco, G.
;
Gilsanz, F.
Resumen Objetivo En la última década se han publicado numerosos trabajos en los que se pone de manifiesto la persistencia de diferencias de género en medicina. La finalidad de este estudio fue investigar si este problema existe en la especialidad de Anestesiología en España. Métodos El estudio se llevó a cabo mediante una encuesta anónima que se distribuyó entre los especialistas en Anestesiología. El cuestionario estaba formado por 39 preguntas diseñadas para investigar la situación profesional, laboral y personal, así como las percepciones individuales en relación con la discriminación de género en el trabajo. Resultados Se incluyeron 1.619 encuestas, lo que representa el 17,6% del total de anestesiólogos de España; 654 participantes fueron hombres (40,4%) y 965 mujeres (59,6%). Las mayores diferencias fueron observadas en las siguientes áreas: el 70,0% de participantes informaron de que su jefe de servicio es un hombre. En relación con los puestos de liderazgo, el 25,2% de las mujeres que respondieron a la encuesta habían desempeñado algún puesto de confianza frente al 46,1% de los hombres (p < 0,001). En cuanto a la posición académica, el 10,3% de los hombres respondieron ser profesores de universidad en contraste con el 4,8% de mujeres (p < 0,001). El 46,0% de las mujeres que participaron en la encuesta piensan que existe discriminación de género en su profesión, mientras que solo el 12,6% de los hombres lo reconocieron. Un tercio de las mujeres (36,6%) consideran su condición de género una barrera para promocionar y tienen miedo de perder su trabajo por quedarse embarazadas. Además, tanto hombres como mujeres han presenciado un trato diferente por parte de pacientes y personal sanitario hacia sus compañeras anestesiólogas. Conclusión Los resultados de esta encuesta demuestran que existe una brecha de género en Anestesiología en España. En concreto, las mujeres están poco representadas en puestos académicos y de liderazgo, y un porcentaje considerable de encuestados perciben diferencias de género en el trabajo. Este estudio puede servir para monitorizar futuros cambios en nuestro país y como ejemplo para investigaciones en otros países vecinos. Abstract Objective Publications of diverse medical specialties confirm that gender differences still exist in the medical field. This particular study aims to investigate whether this problem exists in the specialty of Anaesthesiology in Spain. Methods An anonymous survey was distributed among anaesthesiologists in Spain. It had 39 questions and was designed to investigate professional position, work conditions, personal situation, and individual perceptions. The goal was to target the majority of anaesthesiologists working in Spain. Results Completed surveys were received from 1,619 respondents which represents 17.6% of the total number of anaesthesiologists in Spain; 654 respondents were male (40.4%) and 965 were female (59.6%). The greater differences were found in the following areas: 70.0% of the respondents advised that their head of department is male. When asked about management and leadership positions, 25.2% of female respondents had ever had any management role in contrast to 46.1% of men (p < 0.001). Regarding academic positions, 10.3% of male respondents are university professors in contrast to only 4.8% of women (p < 0.001). 46.0% of the women surveyed believe that gender discrimination exists in the workplace whereas only 12.6% of men reported the same. A third of women (36.6%) consider their gender a barrier to promotion and fear losing their job due to pregnancy. Furthermore, both genders have witnessed patients and colleagues treating staff differently according to gender. Conclusion The results of the survey show the existence of a gender gap among Spanish anaesthesiologists. Of particular note, women are under-represented in academic and leadership positions. Additionally, a considerable percentage of respondents perceive gender-based discrimination to be active in their workplaces. This study could serve as a template for future research in other neighbouring countries and as a means to monitor any changes in coming years.
Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals. Open PDF
(2026-05-01)
Lee, Emily Hyunmin
;
Gomes, Zoya
;
Kim, Jinny Minji
;
Liblik, Kiera
;
Travis, Nicole
INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles. RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022. CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications Open PDF
(Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2026-06)
Barnes, Leandra A.
;
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
;
Wind, Stefanie A.
;
Nord, Kristin M.
;
Laidlaw, Kathrina
BACKGROUND: The impact of rater bias in applicant selection for residency interviews using holistic review is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure faculty raters' bias toward applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status in their recommendations to offer residency interviews. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, applicant (n=3875) and faculty rater (n=69) data within a single institution's dermatology residency application database from 2014 to 2023 were examined for differences in rater judgments to interview applicants as measured by logits (ie, a standardized unit of scoring difference) using the many-facet Rasch model, a statistical method that accounts for variations among raters, applicants, and scoring for applicant gender (23% women, 14% men, and 63% unknown) and URiM status (26% White, 21% non-White non-URiM, 12% URiM, 41% unknown). RESULTS: Rater bias, as measured in logits using the rater severity measure, was minimal for applicant gender (-0.12, 0.08 logits) and URiM status (-0.07, 0.04 logits). However, raters were more lenient (ie, likely to favor an interview) when the applicant's and rater's gender (-1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (-0.46 logits, SE 0.05) were concordant. Conversely, raters were more severe (ie, unlikely to favor an interview) when discordant on gender (1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (0.46 logits, SE 0.05). More than 50% of individual raters exhibited substantial gender bias, and approximately 33% for URiM status bias when concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Raters were more likely to favor offering interview invitations to applicants with concordant gender or URiM status and less likely to favor interviewing applicants with discordant gender or URiM status.
Gender bias in guidelines and recommendations on rheumatology in Argentina: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-05)
Navarro, Belén
;
Sequeira, Gabriel
;
Kerzberg, Eduardo
Abstract Introduction Women constitute the majority in Argentine rheumatology research, but their participation in rheumatology guidelines and recommendations (RGRs) has not been evaluated. Objective To analyze women's representation in RGRs published between 2010 and 2024 that included at least one Argentine rheumatologist. Methods Cross-sectional bibliometric study of rheumatology guidelines and recommendations published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, including at least one rheumatologist affiliated with an Argentine center. Publications were identified through searches in PubMed, the Revista Argentina de Reumatología, and Google Scholar using predefined affiliation-based keywords. The main study variables were author gender, first and corresponding authorship, guideline classification national (NAC) or international (INT), and declared conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. Descriptive analyses were performed, and group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test and chi-square test. Results Eighty-seven RGRs were analyzed (79% INT), with a median publication year of 2021. Of 526 authors, 274 (52%) were women. In NAC RGRs, 57% of authors were women versus 43% in INT (p = 0.003). Among 25 first authors based in Argentina, 11 (44%) were women; among 12 corresponding authors, 5 (42%) were women. COIs were reported in 24 RGRs, totaling 59 declarations, 37 (63%) from men. Conclusions Although women are the majority among Argentine rheumatology researchers, their representation decreases in international publications and leadership roles. Conflicts of interest show a gender bias favoring men. Resumen Introducción Las mujeres son mayoría en la investigación reumatológica argentina, pero no se ha evaluado su participación en las guías y recomendaciones en reumatología (GRR). Objetivo Analizar la representación femenina en las GRR publicadas entre 2010 y 2024 que incluyeran al menos un/a reumatólogo/a con afiliación en Argentina (ARG). Métodos Estudio bibliométrico transversal de GRR en reumatología publicadas entre el 1 de enero de 2010 y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 que incluyeron al menos un/a reumatólogo/a ARG. Las publicaciones fueron identificadas mediante búsqueda en PubMed, Revista Argentina de Reumatología y Google Scholar utilizando combinaciones predefinidas en el campo de afiliación. Se registraron el género de los autores, la autoría principal y de correspondencia, la clasificación de la guía como nacional (NAC) o internacional (INT), y los conflictos de interés (COI) declarados. Se realizaron análisis descriptivos y comparativos (Mann–Whitney U y chi-cuadrado). Resultados Se analizaron 87 GRR (79% INT), con mediana de publicación en 2021. De 526 autores, 274 (52%) fueron mujeres. En las GRR NAC, el 57% de los autores fueron mujeres vs 43% en las INT (p = 0,003). Entre los primeros autores ARG, el 44% fueron mujeres; entre los autores de correspondencia, el 42%. Se declararon COI en 24 GRR (59 declaraciones), 63% correspondientes a hombres. Conclusiones La participación femenina es mayoritaria en las GRR NAC, menor en las INT y en los roles de liderazgo. Los COI muestran un sesgo de género favorable a los hombres.
Are there gender differences in academic medical career aspirations related to research, mentoring and discrimination? A national cross-sectional study of French medical residents Open PDF
(BMJ, 2026-05)
Deledalle, Aurore
;
Congard, Anne
;
Bour, Valentine
;
Sarda, Élisa
;
Cohen, Fleur
OBJECTIVES: Academic medical careers remain marked by persistent gender inequalities, despite the growing feminisation of the medical workforce. The objective of this study was to examine whether gender differences exist in key individual and institutional determinants of academic medical career aspirations among medical residents, including research motivation, mentoring, work centrality, self-efficacy, perceived discrimination and stress. DESIGN: This was a national cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted across 36 medical schools in France. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1570 medical residents (997 women and 573 men) voluntarily participated between November 2022 and February 2023. All participants completed validated self-report questionnaires. There were no exclusion criteria beyond being enrolled in a French residency programme. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes towards research (interest, motivation, significance) were measured using the Scale of Attitudes towards Research. Mentoring was assessed with the Mentor-Mentee Perception Questionnaire, work centrality with Hirschfeld and Feild's scale, self-efficacy with the General Self-Efficacy Scale, perceived discrimination with the Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Experiences of Academic Medical Faculty instrument and stress with the Perceived Stress Scale. Gender differences were analysed using t-tests or χ² tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Compared with men, women reported lower research motivation (mean (SD) 21.0 (5.5) vs 22.8 (5.5); padj=0.011), lower research interest (27.1 (5.5) vs 28.1 (5.7); padj=0.011), lower work centrality (26.7 (7.0) vs 28.2 (8.1); padj=0.011) and lower self-efficacy (28.3 (5.2) vs 29.9 (5.0); padj=0.011). Women were less likely to report having a mentor (38.5% vs 44.5%; padj=0.02). They also reported substantially higher levels of experienced gender discrimination (22.8% vs 3.8%; padj=0.005), sexual harassment (57.7% vs 18.2%; padj=0.005) and perceived stress (8.48 (3.29) vs 7.27 (3.43); padj=0.011) CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences were observed across several individual and institutional factors associated with academic medical career aspirations. Reduced access to mentoring and greater exposure to discrimination and stress among women may contribute to lower research motivation and self-efficacy. These findings highlight the need for institutional strategies addressing mentoring, workplace culture and equity to support gender parity in academic medicine.
Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF
(California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
Manes, Akash
;
Lall, Michelle D.
;
Knight, Starr
;
Raja, Ali S.
;
Khosa, Faisal
Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results