PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2020Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 34
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in faculty promotion Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2024-11-08)
    Czech, Agata
    ;
    Olarreaga, Marcelo
    ;
    Peila, Olivia
    ;
    Ghinetti, Paolo
    We examine the gender gap in faculty promotion at the University of Geneva. After building a new measure of research quality that has no gender bias (i.e. men and women have, on average, the same level of research quality after we control for disciplines), we find that conditional on research quality, discipline and place where the PhD was obtained, women are 11 percent less likely to get promoted. The gender gap is almost three times larger for promotion from assistant to associate professor, suggesting that the mechanism at play is stronger for junior faculty. The gender gap is explained by the fact that an equal increase in research quality leads to a smaller increase in women’s probability of promotion.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Shattering the Glass Scalpel: Analyzing Female Representation in Orthopedic Surgery Across the United States Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-03-05)
    Loyst, Rachel A
    ;
    Hidalgo Perea, Sofia
    ;
    Vanhelmond, Taylor
    ;
    Patterson, Diana
    Background Orthopedic surgery has historically been a male-dominated field, with slower growth in female participation compared to other surgical specialties. The present study aims to assess the extent of this influence, examine whether the dynamic is changing, and further analyze female participation trends, focusing on various regions of the United States and including analyses of female residents. Methodology Orthopedic surgery residency programs were surveyed online. A list of 200 programs was sourced from the Association of American Medical Colleges, which provided details including the program names, cities, states, regions, and website links. The homepages of the residency program as well as the department of orthopedic surgery were surveyed for any mention of women or female in orthopedics, number of female residents, total number of residents (class of 2025-2029), number of female faculty operative orthopedic faculty, total number of operative orthopedic faculty physicians, specialty of the female orthopedic faculty, program director gender, assistant program director gender, and chair of the program gender. Data analyses were performed using SPSS Software version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Rstudio version 1.4.1106 (Boston, MA, USA). Results In total, 55 Midwest (28%), 53 Northeast (27%), 63 South (32%), and 27 West (14%) orthopedic surgery residency programs were included. Female orthopedic surgery residents comprised 23.7% of all orthopedic residents across the United States. When analyzed by geographic region, female residents comprised 22.7% of all residents in the Midwest, 24.3% in the Northeast, 22.5% in the South, and 27.0% in the West. In the Northeast region, there was a notable upward trend in the percentage of female residents across PGY5 to PGY1 years (τ = 1, p = 0.027). A total of 25 (12.6%) programs had a section in their residency program or orthopedic department website homepage that mentioned and/or was dedicated to women or females. There was a significant association between region and homepage mention of women (χ² (8, N = 198) = 105.7; p < 0.001). A total of 12.9% of all orthopedic residency program directors were female, while 21.2% of all associate program directors were female. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and addressing regional disparities in gender representation within orthopedic surgery residency programs. By identifying trends and disparities, healthcare institutions and policymakers can implement targeted interventions to promote gender equity and cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men Open PDF 
    (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, 2021)
    Murrar, Sohad
    ;
    Johnson, Paula A.
    ;
    Lee, You-Geon
    ;
    Carnes, Molly
    Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mihaljević, H.
    ;
    Santamaría, L.
    Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority. © 2020 Helena Mihaljević and Lucía Santamaría.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Madden, Caoimhe
    ;
    O'Malley, Róisín
    ;
    O'Connor, Paul
    ;
    O'Dowd, Emily
    ;
    Byrne, Dara
    CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    13-Year Analysis of Gender Disparity in Peer-reviewed Burn Literature
    (2023)
    Khan, IF
    ;
    Ketheeswaran, S
    ;
    Willey, B
    ;
    Alasgarov, E
    ;
    Turker, I
    Women are less likely to be senior authors, invited to write in scientific journals, and to be cited in high impact journals. The aim of this study was to investigate trends in authorship and gender differences in peer-reviewed burn literature over 13 years. We performed a retrospective analysis of original research articles published from January 2009 to September 2021 in three burn journals. A gender determination application was used to categorize the gender of the first and senior author. Of the 3908 articles analyzed, 42.5% had a woman first author and 27.6% had a woman senior author. We identified 2029 unique senior authors, 29.0% of whom were women. Woman senior authorship was associated with increased odds of woman first authorship [OR = 2.31 (95% CI: 2.00, 2.67); P < .001]. The percentage of papers with a woman senior author increased from 17.8% in 2009 to 35.7% in 2021. If this 1.0% (95% CI: 0.50-1.51%) linear trend increase per year in woman senior authorship continues, we will expect to see equal proportions of woman and man senior authors in the included journals starting in 2037. The field of burn care is far from reaching gender parity with respect to authorship of peer-reviewed publications. Supporting and encouraging gender-concordant and discordant first:last authorship dyads in mentorship as well as redistributing obligations that may detract from authorship opportunities are potential ways to improve parity in authorship and academia.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kern-Goldberger, Adina R.
    ;
    James, Richard
    ;
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    ;
    Miller, Emily S.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    Re: “Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer Reviewed Medical Publications” Bernardi et al Open PDF 
    (Elsevier B. V., 2020)
    Ibrahim, H.
    ;
    Archuleta, S.
    ;
    Stadler, D.J.
    ;
    Cofrancesco, J.