PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
10 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Monitoring the gender gap in the coverage of biology professors on Wikipedia Open PDF(The Royal Society, 2026-05-27) ;Alvarez-Ponce, DavidIyengar, NivedaWomen are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, especially in senior positions. One known reason is the limited visibility of female scientists, which discourages young women from entering STEM fields, thus perpetuating the gender gap. A number of studies have shown that women, including those in academia, are less likely to have a Wikipedia biography than their male counterparts, and that, when they have a biography, it tends to be underdeveloped. Since Wikipedia informs a large portion of society on a daily basis-especially young people-who is covered on the platform, and who is excluded from it, matters. Therefore, a number of projects have been created to increase women's coverage on Wikipedia. Using a recently generated census of 2104 female and 3721 male tenured and tenure-eligible faculty members affiliated with the biology departments of all United States R1 universities, we examined the extent to which biology faculty are covered on Wikipedia. Women in the census were significantly less likely to be featured on the platform than their male peers until 2018. However, the trend reversed in 2022, and women were 25% more likely than men to have a Wikipedia biography in 2024. In addition, women's biographies tend to be longer than those of men. Our results highlight the importance and effectiveness of projects aimed at improving women's coverage on Wikipedia.Item type:Publication, Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF(2018) ;Mathur, Ambika ;Cano, Annmarie ;Kohl, Michael ;Muthunayake, Nisansala S.Vaidyanathan, PrassannaIt has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.Item type:Publication, Gender Gap in the Authorship of Scientific Publications: An Analysis Based on Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiología(2024) ;Toledo-Rodríguez, L. ;Torres-Morales, F. ;Escobar, C.Á. ;Jara, C.Jiménez-Moya, G.Gender inequality is present in various social contexts, including academia and scientific practices, as reflected in the authorship of publications. The aim of this study is to determine whether differences exist between men and women regarding first authorship, the thematic areas investigated, and the effect of the first author's gender on team composition in articles published in Revista Chilena de Fonoaudiología between 1999 and 2020. An analytical and retrospective study was conducted using univariate Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with a log link, Poisson family, and robust estimation. The results showed that 53.4% of the articles had a woman as the first author, which dropped to 43.8% between 2016 and 2020. Men predominated in areas such as swallowing and voice, while women were more prominent in child communication and language (61.9%). Additionally, the probability of women being co-authors decreases when men are the first authors. These results indicate that, despite the relevant role of female scientists, the gender gap in publications persists. © 2024, Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Fonoaudiologia. All rights reserved.Item type:Publication, No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research Open PDF(2019) ;Thelwall, M.Nevill, T.The lack of females in many Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in the USA is an ongoing concern, with many initiatives attempting to redress this imbalance. Some life sciences are apparently areas of relatively good practice, with higher proportions of female researchers than most other STEM subjects. This paper assesses gender differences in research contributions to 14 biochemistry, genetics or molecular biology specialisms in the USA 1996–2014/8, seeking evidence of trends in publishing and citation impact that may give insights into female success. With four exceptions (biochemistry, biophysics, biotechnology, and structural biology), the fields achieved or maintained at least 40% female first authors by 2018, with developmental biology and endocrinology both attaining female first author majorities. A regression analysis found close to gender parity overall in citation impact but a small male first author citation advantage in more fields than the opposite: an up to 3% increase in logged citation ratio to the world mean. This was partly due to males first authoring with larger teams. Fields with relatively many females did not favour female-led research with more citations, however. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.Item type:Publication, Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Open PDF(2019)Roper, Rachel L.The percentage of women employed in professional scientific positions has been low but is increasing over time. The U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have both implemented programs to improve women's participation in science, and many universities and companies have diversity and equity programs. While most faculty and scientists believe that they are fair and unbiased, numerous well-designed studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals show that gender bias in sciences and medicine is widespread and persistent today in both faculty and students. Recent studies show that gender bias affects student grading, professional hiring, mentoring, tenure, promotion, respect, grant proposal success, and pay. In addition, sexual harassment remains a significant barrier. Fortunately, several studies provide evidence that programs that raise conscious awareness of gender bias can improve equity in science, and there are a number of recommendations and strategies for improving the participation of women.Item type:Publication, Sex and gender essentialism in textbooks Open PDF(2024) ;Donovan, B.M. ;Syed, A. ;Arnold, S.H. ;Lee, D.Weindling, M.Item type:Publication, Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–2016) Open PDF(2020)Dehdarirad, T.In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014–2016, retrieved from Web of Science’s Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets. © 2020 Tahereh Dehdarirad. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Item type:Publication, Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM Open PDF(2021) ;Casad, Bettina J. ;Franks, Jillian E. ;Garasky, Christina E. ;Kittleman, Melinda M.Roesler, Alanna C.Recently there is widespread interest in women's underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, progress toward gender equality in these fields is slow. More alarmingly, these gender disparities worsen when examining women's representation within STEM departments in academia. While the number of women receiving postgraduate degrees has increased in recent years, the number of women in STEM faculty positions remains largely unchanged. One explanation for this lack of progress toward gender parity is negative and pervasive gender stereotypes, which may facilitate hiring discrimination and reduce opportunities for women's career advancement. Women in STEM also have lower social capital (e.g., support networks), limiting women's opportunities to earn tenure and learn about grant funding mechanisms. Women faculty in STEM may also perceive their academic climate as unwelcoming and threatening, and report hostility and uncomfortable tensions in their work environments, such as sexual harassment and discrimination. Merely the presence of gender-biased cues in physical spaces targeted toward men (e.g., “geeky” décor) can foster a sense of not belonging in STEM. We describe the following three factors that likely contribute to gender inequalities and women's departure from academic STEM fields: (a) numeric underrepresentation and stereotypes, (b) lack of supportive social networks, and (c) chilly academic climates. We discuss potential solutions for these problems, focusing on National Science Foundation-funded ADVANCE organizational change interventions that target (a) recruiting diverse applicants (e.g., training search committees), (b) mentoring, networking, and professional development (e.g., promoting women faculty networks); and (c) improving academic climate (e.g., educating male faculty on gender bias).Item type:Publication, "Her Joyous Enthusiasm for Her Life-Work …": Early Women Authors in The American Naturalist. Open PDF(2018) ;Bronstein, Judith L.Bolnick, Daniel I.Women have long been underrepresented in the natural sciences, and although great progress has been made in recent decades, many subtle and not-so-subtle barriers persist. In this context, it is easy to get the impression that the early history of ecology and evolutionary biology was exclusively the domain of male researchers. In fact, a number of women made very substantial contributions to The American Naturalist in its first decades. In a follow-up to a series of retrospective essays celebrating 150 years of this journal, we highlight the scientific contributions of the women published in it during its first 50 years (1867-1916). We also discuss the diverse paths that their scientific careers took and the barriers they faced along the way.Item type:Publication, Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally Open PDF(eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2019) ;Broderick, Nichole A ;Casadevall, ArturoRodgers, Peter AWe analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.