PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10

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.
Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19 Open PDF
(2022)
Madsen, Emil Bargmann
;
Nielsen, Mathias Wullum
;
Bjørnholm, Josefine
;
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Andersen, Jens Peter
Publications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.
The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF
(2022)
Lufler, Rebecca S.
;
McNulty, Margaret A.
The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.
Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling Open PDF
(2024)
Lail, Achint
;
Ding, Jeffrey
;
Leyva, Brayden K.
;
Jalal, Sabeena
;
Nakae, Sunny
OBJECTIVE: Achieving gender equity in academic medicine is not only a matter of social justice but also necessary in promoting an innovative and productive academic community. The purpose of this study was to assess gender distribution in dual MD/PhD academic programme faculty members across North America. METHODS: Academic metrics were analysed to quantify the relative career success of academic faculty members in MD/PhD programmes. Measured parameters included academic and leadership ranks along with nominal research factors such as peer-reviewed research publications, H-index, citation number and years of active research. RESULTS: Χ² analysis revealed a statistically significant (p<0.0001, χ²=114.5) difference in the gender distribution of faculty and leadership across North American MD/PhD programmes. Men held 74.2% of full professor positions, 64% of associate professor positions, 59.4% of assistant professor positions and 62.8% of lecturer positions. Moreover, men occupied a larger share of faculty leadership roles with a statistically significant disparity across all ranks (p<0.001, χ²=20.4). A higher proportion of men held positions as department chairs (79.6%), vice chairs (69.1%) and programme leads (69.4%). CONCLUSION: Gender disparity was prevalent in the MD/PhD programmes throughout North America with women achieving a lower degree of professional stature than men. Ultimately, steps must be taken to support women faculty to afford them better opportunities for academic and professional advancement.
Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF
(2021)
Krukowski, Rebecca A.
;
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Cardel, Michelle I.
Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.
COVID-19 Threatens Progress Toward Gender Equity Within Academic Medicine Open PDF
(2021)
Woitowich, Nicole C.
;
Jain, Shikha
;
Arora, Vineet M.
;
Joffe, Hadine
Women remain underrepresented within academic medicine despite past and present efforts to promote gender equity. The authors discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic could stymie progress toward gender parity within the biomedical workforce and limit the retention and advancement of women in science and medicine. Women faculty face distinct challenges as they navigate the impact of shelter-in-place and social distancing on work and home life. An unequal division of household labor and family care between men and women means women faculty are vulnerable to inequities that may develop in the workplace as they strive to maintain academic productivity and professional development without adequate assistance with domestic tasks and family care. Emerging data suggest that gender differences in academic productivity may be forthcoming as a direct result of the pandemic. Existing gender inequities in professional visibility, networking, and collaboration may be exacerbated as activities transition from in-person to virtual environments and create new barriers to advancement. Meanwhile, initiatives designed to promote gender equity within academic medicine may lose key funding due to the economic impact of COVID-19 on higher education. To ensure that the gender gap within academic medicine does not widen, the authors call upon academic leaders and the broader biomedical community to support women faculty through deliberate actions that promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors provide several recommendations, including faculty needs assessments; review of gender bias within tenure-clock-extension offers; more opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship, and professional recognition; and financial commitments to support equity initiatives. Leadership for these efforts should be at the institutional and departmental levels, and leaders should ensure a gender balance on task forces and committees to avoid overburdening women faculty with additional service work. Together, these strategies will contribute to the development of a more equitable workforce capable of transformative medical discovery and care.
Diversifying Researchers and Funding in Otolaryngology Open PDF
(2021)
Fang, Christina H.
;
Barinsky, Gregory L.
;
Gray, Stacey T.
;
Baredes, Soly
;
Chandrasekhar, Sujana S.
Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.
Scholarly Productivity Among Academic Foot and Ankle Surgeons Affiliated With US Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Residency and Fellowship Training Programs Open PDF
(2021)
Casciato, Dominick J.
;
Cravey, Kimberly S.
;
Barron, Ian M.
Foot and ankle surgeons practicing within academic medicine balance clinical or surgical training, course instruction, administrative duties, and research. Along with clinical skills and patient volume, promotion within academia often relies on scholarly productivity. Previous research across specialties described this productivity using variables including publications, citations, and the h-index, a scale that quantifies the productivity and citation impact of published works, among academic ranks. As no studies examine the scholarly impact of foot and ankle surgeons with academic appointments, this study aimed to analyze the productivity and gender differences present in this specialty. A systematic review of academic-affiliated foot and ankle surgery residencies and fellowships was performed; and faculty members were screened for sex, academic rank, publication history, citations, h-index, and years in practice. Among 234 programs reviewed, 44 programs allowed for the analysis of 106 practitioners with an academic rank eligible for analysis. Overall, 78.3% of practitioners were male with the most common rank being assistant professor. Men published more documents and maintained higher citations as well as longer years in practice, and this was significant (p < .05). A significant difference was exhibited among all academic ranks (p ≤ .001). Multivariate regression revealed the publication history and years in practice are strongly correlated with the h-index of providers (p ≤ .001). Foot and ankle surgeons practicing in an academic setting may use the results of this study to gauge their productivity and identify benchmarks that similar providers have met at varying academic ranks.
Gender Disparities in Academic Productivity and Promotion Among Endocrine Surgery Faculty Open PDF
(Academic Press Inc., 2022)
Ammann, A.M.
;
Delman, A.M.
;
Bethi, M.
;
Turner, K.M.
;
Sedaghat, A.R.
Introduction: Academic rank and metrics such as total publications (pubs) and H-index are indicators to measure academic achievement. This study aims to determine whether there are gender differences in academic productivity or faculty appointments among endocrine surgeons in the United States. Methods: A database was generated from the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) website. Community or academic practice was designated by institution affiliation and faculty appointment. Academic metrics, including pubs, H-index, and weighted-RCR (relative citation ratio), were obtained from public databases. Results: A total of 258 AAES members were affiliated with an academic institution. The majority were men (58%). Overall, men in endocrine surgery had higher academic metrics: pubs (56.0 [26-134], 23.0 [11-56], P < 0.0001), H-index (19.0 [11-35], 9.0 [5-21], P < 0.0001), weighted-RCR (63.5 [22-193], 24.1 [8-74], P < 0.005) and rank (associate professor or professor, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis accounting for time in practice found no difference in total publications, weighted RCR, or faculty appointments between genders in practice for 0-5 y. However, among surgeons in practice for 6-10 y, men had higher academic metrics (pubs: 31.0 [16-79], 18.5 [9-33]; RCR: 46.0 [14-102], 13.3 [9-34]) and faculty appointments (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: There are gender disparities in academic productivity and faculty appointment among US endocrine surgeons. While junior faculty show no gender differences in most indicators of academic productivity or rank, men with 6-10 y in practice have higher average academic metrics and rank. Whether the absence of gender disparities among junior faculty is a sustainable reflection of recent efforts to encourage equal mentorship and professional opportunities or whether disparities will manifest as faculty progress remains to be determined. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.
The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons Open PDF
(2022)
Agaronnik, Nicole
;
Xiong, Grace X.
;
Uzosike, Akachimere
;
Crawford, Alexander M.
;
Lightsey, Harry M.
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion. RESULTS: The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty. CONCLUSIONS: The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results