PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Start date: 2024Viewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • 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,
    A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review Open PDF 
    (J Surg Res, 2024)
    S, Subramanian
    ;
    Rs, Maisner
    ;
    N, Patel
    ;
    A, Song
    ;
    L, Yuan
    Abstract Introduction: Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities. Methods: Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles. Results: Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005). Conclusions: While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among publications within international sexual medicine urology journals and the impact of blinding in the review process Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Burg, Madeleine L.
    ;
    Kohli, Priya
    ;
    Ha, Nhi
    ;
    Mora, Richard
    ;
    Kurup, Trisha
    BACKGROUND: While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals. AIM: We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process. METHODS: Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members. RESULTS: Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors. CONCLUSION: Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.