PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 15

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Towards gender equity in Australian health and medical research funding Open PDF
(2023)
Kelso, A
Are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review* Open PDF
(2022)
Hengel, Erin
Female authors are underrepresented in top economics journals. In this paper, I investigate whether higher writing standards contribute to the problem. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap widens during peer review; (iii) women improve their writing as they publish more papers (but men do not); (iv) female-authored papers take longer under review. Using a subjective expected utility framework, I argue that higher writing standards for women are consistent with these stylised facts. A counterfactual analysis suggests senior female economists may, as a result, write at least five percent more clearly than they otherwise would. As a final exercise, I show tentative evidence that women adapt to biased treatment in ways that may disguise it as voluntary choice.
Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons
(2022)
Zhang, L.
;
Shang, Y.
;
Huang, Y.
;
Sivertsen, G.
Peer review of scientific manuscripts before publication is essential in scholarly publishing, and most active researchers hold relationships with a number of journals as both an author and a reviewer. There have been several studies focusing on gender balance in academic research and authorship, but fewer studies on our role as reviewers. Publons is a commercial website run by Clarivate Analytics that allows researchers to track and verify their peer review activities and be recognized for it. The platform features over 2 million researchers and 6.9 million reviews for more than 5,000 partnered journals, listing the most active reviewers as “top reviewers”. Our study focuses on gender representation in this ‘top reviewer’ group while also looking at the countries, regions and research fields they represent, as well as the relationship between their roles as authors and reviewers. The results show that male reviewers dominate in almost all countries, regions, and research fields. Male reviewers generally contribute to review work more frequently than females; however, female reviewers write longer reviews. The correlations between reviewing activity and research activity are generally weak overall and within specific research fields. This may reflect that active reviewers are not necessarily the most productive researchers in their fields. What clearly emerges from our results is the need for more concern over gender representation in the quality assurance and gatekeeping functions of scholarly publishing. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap Open PDF
(2023)
Si, K
;
Li, YW
;
Ma, C
;
Guo, F
We document an affiliation bias in top Chinese journals and the gender gap in the current affiliation effect. We find that papers written by researchers who are affiliated with the journals' host institutions on average receive fewer citation counts than those written by non-affiliated researchers. Moreover, we show that this affiliation bias is greater for men than for women. We propose that the current effect can be accounted for by a social capital mechanism, and we provide evidence consistent with our proposition. In addition, the results of our analyses demonstrate heterogeneity of the affiliation bias and the gender gap with regard to researcher status. We discuss alternative mechanisms of the current effect and implications of our research.
Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature Open PDF
(SAGE Publications, 2022)
Selvakumar, Sruthi
;
Zagales, Israel
;
Newsome, Kevin
;
Spardy, Jeffrey
;
Santos, Radleigh
BackgroundAuthorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen?s Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate.ResultsFifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106).ConclusionThere is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results