PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.BiologySubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Bias in the Study of Genital Evolution: Females Continue to Receive Less Attention than Males Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Orbach, D. N.
    The evolution of female genitalia has historically received less attention than male reproductive organs. Several papers have underscored the disparities in research efforts, but have calls for change resonated with the scientific community and rectified the skew? A literature review was conducted of journal articles published between 2013 through 2021 that explore genital evolution to determine if gender bias (sex of research subject) and imbalance (sex of researcher) have changed. Of the 334 articles that specifically explored genital evolution, first authors of both sexes published on female genitalia less than half as often as male genitalia, although the majority of authors published on genitalia of both sexes. First authors of both sexes mentioned females after males substantially more often than females before males. Female first authors published the most about genital evolution in all taxa except for insects and arachnids. Female first authors published in high impact journals marginally less often than male first authors. Articles about genital evolution across taxa generally had high impact factors, but how impact factors and number of citations varied by the sex of the subject was not clear. Although the number of studies exploring genital co-evolution between the sexes has increased across taxa and years, female genitalia continue to be researched less often than male genitalia when only one sex is investigated. Both female and male scientists are publishing in the field of genital evolution, although research on female subjects continue to lag behind males, demonstrating continued bias within the discipline.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • 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,
    The role of women in Brazilian ethnobiology: Challenges and perspectives Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Da Silva, T.C.
    ;
    De Medeiros, P.M.
    ;
    Hanazaki, N.
    ;
    Da Fonseca-Kruel, V.S.
    ;
    Hora, J.S.L.
    Background: The article aims to analyze the representativeness of women in ethnobiological publications within the Brazilian context, as well as to relate the difficulties faced by women in their scientific careers in terms of gender bias. Biases found in publications are relevant themes to different areas of knowledge, considering the historical persistence of male privilege in these activities. We analyzed the role of women in ethnobiological scientific publications and sought to reflect on gender issues in academic practices and fieldwork. Methods: We conducted a 28-year survey of academic publications in Brazil, through the Scopus and Web of Science databases, in order to infer the female representation in ethnobiological literature. We also sent 77 questionnaires to ethnobiologists associated with the Brazilian society of ethnobiology and ethnoecology or indicted by associates through snowball sampling. Results: We observed that there are more articles where the senior author is male (p < 0.05). However, there are no differences in the number of publications led by men and women (p > 0.05), which shows a positive trend in terms of representation. Within subareas, ethnozoology had more male authors than other subareas of ethnobiology. Articles whose senior authors are men tend to be published in journals with a higher impact (p < 0.05). The interviews with Brazilian ethnobiologists showed that 53.2% of the interviewees reported feeling discriminated against in the academic environment because they were women. Moreover, 61.0% said they had disadvantages in collecting data because they were women. Additionally, most of the researchers reported having witnessed cases of sexism in the studied communities. Conclusion: In the current scenarios of female participation, it is possible to reflect and identify advances and challenges associated with gender bias in ethnobiological studies conducted by Brazilian, both in the emic and etic spheres of research and in our scientific practice. As researchers in the area, we deal directly with social problems in the studied communities, such as violence against women, sexism, and prejudice, as well as the many problems faced in the academic universe itself. © 2019 The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally Open PDF 
    (eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2019)
    Broderick, Nichole A
    ;
    Casadevall, Arturo
    ;
    Rodgers, Peter A
    We 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.