PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 39

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 shapes the relationship between productivity and journal prestige in science Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2026-03-27)
Ribeiro, Vítor H.
;
Sunahara, Andre S.
;
Shahtahmassebi, Golnaz
;
Perc, Matjaž
;
Ribeiro, Haroldo V.
Gender disparities in academia manifest and persist in various aspects of the scientific enterprise, yet their influence on the interplay between research productivity and journal prestige remains underexplored. Here we analyze the academic trajectories of over 6000 elite Brazilian researchers by jointly tracking their annual productivity and the average prestige of the journals in which they publish. By projecting individual career years onto a standardized productivity-prestige plane and applying Bayesian hierarchical modeling, we find that male researchers are more likely to follow productivity-oriented trajectories and are markedly overrepresented in the hyperprolific region of this plane. Female peers, in contrast, more often occupy regions that prioritize journal prestige over publication quantity. Although male researchers publish more throughout their careers, their female counterparts achieve comparable or higher average journal prestige, particularly in later career stages and among outlier individuals. Male researchers also exhibit greater temporal persistence in their productivity and impact levels and are especially averse to simultaneously changing both metrics compared to their female peers. Among non-outliers, productivity and career age have a negative overall impact on the average journal prestige of researchers of both genders, with slightly stronger effects observed among female researchers; however, these patterns vary across disciplines, highlighting the complexity and heterogeneity of academic careers.
Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals Open PDF
(eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2026-02-20)
Ni, Chaoqun
;
Basson, Isabel
;
Badia, Giovanna
;
Tufenkji, Nathalie
;
Sugimoto, Cassidy R
Women are particularly underrepresented as leading authors of papers in journals of the highest impact factor, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly 5000 active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers to journals of the highest impact (e.g., Science, Nature, or PNAS) and to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men when they do submit. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to high-impact journals because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their 'work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel' as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the 'work would fit better in a more specialized journal'. We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior.
Gender-Based Disparities in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Physician Compensation in 2023 Open PDF
(Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-03-11)
Chauhan, Dhun
;
DeYoung, Joshua K.
;
Goodrich, Ezra
;
Templeton, Kimberly
;
Day, Charles S.
Background: Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the least diverse specialties in medicine. Parity in opportunity and recognition are key factors in attracting and retaining a diverse group of individuals in the field. The primary purpose of this study was to assess gender-based discrepancies in total salary compensation by rank for academic orthopaedic surgery faculty. Methods: Aggregate data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for fiscal year 2023. Mean compensation was compared for orthopaedic surgery faculty and total surgery faculty at all academic ranks based on gender and race. Results: Men received markedly higher total compensation for all ranks except chair within orthopaedic surgery. At the instructor level, men earned an average annual income of $554,245 while women received $229,204, demonstrating a significant pay gap (P = 0.0019). At the assistant professor (men: $628,346; women: $475,857), associate professor (men: $732,381; women: $575,877), and professor (men: $743,822; women: $472,140) levels, there existed significant pay disparities (P < 0.0001 for all three academic levels, respectively). At the chief position, men earned an average of $1,185,873 annually while women received $596,270 (P = 0.0006). Aggregate data for other surgical specialties demonstrated similar results, with women receiving lower total compensation at all ranks compared with men. Conclusion: This analysis of the 2023 American Medical Colleges Faculty Salary Report demonstrates a notable pay differential between men and women in orthopaedic surgery and surgical specialties, in general, across multiple academic levels including instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chief of division. Although there has been increasing awareness of gender-based compensation disparities within surgical specialties, particularly in orthopaedic surgery, these disparities are still clearly present.
Investigating Career Advancement in Academic Cytopathology Workforce: A Gender and Regional Comparison Open PDF
(Wiley, 2025-04-10)
Chiou, Paul Z.
;
Jia, Yuane
;
Vinod, Rema
ABSTRACT Objective Using bibliometric analysis to inform factors impacting career mobility, focusing on gender and regional variations in academic cytopathology. Methods The Scopus database was used to determine the productivity and experience of cytopathologists who are faculty from the 92 fellowship programs. The dependent variable was promotion to the rank of Professor. A regression analysis was conducted with productivity (h‐index), experience (years in publication) and one's geographic work location as covariates to investigate the role of gender in promotion. Results The gender distribution is skewed towards females at the Assistant (62.4% vs. 37.58%) and Associate Professors (70.51% vs. 29.49%) levels, but the gap narrows at the full‐professor rank (52.98% vs. 47.02%). The regression model showed significant regional variation in promotion for the Southern (0.35; 95% CI, 0.16–0.79; p = 0.012) and Northeastern (0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.57; p = 0.001) regions compared to the West. Active years of publishing (1.18; 95% CI, 1.11–1.27; p < 0.001) and productivity (1.09; 95% CI, 1.06–1.12; p < 0.001) were factors in promotion. The mean HI productivity was comparable between the males and females in the first (4.41 for males and 4.40 for females) and the second decade (13.81 for males and 12.84 for females). However, the gap widened into the third decade (30.27 for males and 26.40 for females), suggesting potential areas for improvement. Conclusion While the academic cytopathology workforce is progressing towards gender equity, there is still room for improvement. Our findings suggest that focusing on mid‐career professionals(between the second to third decades) by providing additional resources for research and facilitating work–life flexibility can help close the gender gap at the highest level.
Trends of female authorship in speech-language pathology publications over the last decade Open PDF
(BMJ, 2025-07)
Ganesan, Sandhya
;
Ferraro, Tatiana
;
Smaoui, Sana
;
Zitoun, Leena
;
Pramanik, Lara
Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyse the speech-language pathology (SLP) literature from 2012 to 2022 and evaluate authorship trends and factors associated with gender disparities. Design and outcome measures Authorship across journals published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) was evaluated. Outcomes collected from each article included the gender of the first and senior authors, author department affiliations, study type, reported funding source and the country of origin. Three sets of linear regression models were explored to determine the probability of male first authorship, of male senior authorship, and of a study being funded. Results A total of 2754 articles were identified for inclusion. The majority of the literature was authored by females, with 77% of first authors and 68% of senior authors being female. Studies with a male senior author were shown to be 4.05–4.67 times more likely to have a male first author than with a female senior author. Male senior authors were over-represented relative to their proportion of ASHA membership compared with female senior authors. Male authorship was associated with certain subtopics, including voice, stuttering and motor speech. Funding probability decreased for all authors regardless of gender between 2012 and 2022. Conclusions Implicit gender bias and societal gender stereotypes lead to a greater number of women in the field of SLP; the same biases and stereotypes often limit the research productivity and academic leadership potential of women in the field. Addressing these biases and stereotypes is vital to move towards gender equity in the field.
Persistent gender disparity in leading dental publications across 4 decades: an observational study Open PDF
(2024)
Moreno, Laura Barreto
;
Franco, Marina Christ
;
Karam, Sarah Arangurem
;
van de Sande, Françoise Hélène
;
Montagner, Anelise Fernandes
OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the differences in the gender of the first and last authors in the most-cited dental articles over the last 4 decades. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Articles were obtained through an electronic search of the most-cited articles in dentistry by decade (total n = 400 articles). The 100 most-cited studies in each decade (1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, and 2010-2019), with any study design, with results in dentistry were eligible. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using the Genderize database. Comparative evaluation of gender distribution in general and across the 4 decades was performed with the Chi-square test, and the contribution of variables on the citation rate of articles was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: There were statistical differences between the gender distributions, with a predominance of men in the first (83.8%) and the last (86.8%) positions (P < .001). Over the decades, there was a tendency for an increase in the proportion of women as the last author (P = .002; Chi-square trend Test), with an increase of women from 6% to 22% across the last 4 decades. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the genders for the first author in the last 4 decades (P = .163; Chi-square trend Test). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that men lead a large percentage of the most-cited articles in dentistry and that this trend has not shown substantial modifications over the last years. Nonetheless, for the position of last authorship, an increase in women's representativity was observed over the last decades.
Gender Gap in Scientific Publications on COVID-19 in Italy During the First Wave of the Pandemic: An Observational Study Open PDF
(2022)
Mazzalai, Elena
;
Turatto, Federica
;
De Vito, Corrado
Background: Worldwide, concerns rise on how COVID-19 pandemic impacted heavily on women, even on those belonging to the scientific community. The Italian scientific production regarding the COVID-19 throughout the first months of the health emergency could help to understand the heft of female researchers in this unique period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the gender gap in the scientific production on COVID-19 in Italy during the first months of the pandemic. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted and, for each included study, first and last author's gender, type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation, journal's Impact Factor (IF) and specialization were extracted. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. Results: 22.2% of the articles were signed by a woman as first author, 18.1% as last authors. Female authorship was less frequent than male authorship regardless of the type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation and field of specialization. Conclusion: This analysis reveal a low prevalence of studies with a female first or last author and suggests that the low share of female authors publishing on COVID-19 during the considered timespan is a transversal issue throughout the Italian medical field.
Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled Open PDF
(2024)
Mastrorocco, Elisabetta
;
Terrin, Maria
;
Migliorisi, Giulia
;
Masoni, Benedetta
;
Farinola, Valeria
BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.
Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Open PDF
(2024)
Marhoffer, Elizabeth A.
;
Ein-Alshaeba, Samer
;
Grimshaw, Alyssa A.
;
Holleck, Jürgen L.
;
Rudikoff, Benjamin
PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results