PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Clinical MedicineViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2025-11-19)
    Sebo, Paul
    ;
    Elango, B.
    Background Gender disparities in scientific authorship are well documented, yet little is known about gender representation among authors of retracted publications. Methods We analyzed 878 retracted publications from 131 high-impact medical journals across nine clinical disciplines (anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology). Gender was inferred using Gender API for all, first, and last authors. Two analytic samples were constructed based on prediction confidence thresholds (≥60% and ≥70%). We examined gender distribution across authorship positions, number of retractions per author, and disciplinary representation. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests were used to assess group differences. Gender proportions were compared with publication benchmarks from 2008–2017, restricting retraction data to the same period for comparability. Results Among 4,136 authors, 3,909 had full first names, and gender could be assigned to 3,865 (98.9%). In the sample with prediction confidence ≥60% (n = 3,743), 863 (23.1%) were identified as women. They accounted for 16.5% (123/747) of first and 12.7% (87/687) of last authors. They had significantly fewer retractions per author and were less likely to have >5 retractions (all authors: 3 women [8.1%] vs 34 men [91.9%], p < 0.001). Across most disciplines, their representation was below publication benchmarks. Dermatology (retractions = 80.0%, publications = 48.9–51.8%) and radiology (retractions = 40.0%, publications = 31.0-36.8%) were exceptions among first authors, while pediatrics (retractions = 50.0%, publications = 37.0%−42.6%) was an exception among last authors, though all based on small numbers. Conclusions Women are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions. Further research is needed to clarify underlying mechanisms.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in the author bylines of articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Matchanova, Anastasia
    ;
    Avci, Gunes
    ;
    Babicz, Michelle A.
    ;
    Thompson, Jennifer L.
    ;
    Johnson, Briana
    Objective: Women are becoming more prevalent in clinical neuropsychology, but gender bias and disparities persist across multiple professional domains. This study examined potential gender disparities in historical authorship trends across commonly read journals in clinical neuropsychology. Method: Analyses were conducted on 10,531 articles published in six clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019. Each author was coded as either a man or a woman using the OpenGenderTracking Project database. Results: On average, women comprised 43.3% (±30.6) of the authors listed in clinical neuropsychology article bylines and were lead and/or corresponding author on 50.3% of these papers. Findings varied by journal, with Child Neuropsychology having the best representation of women across several study metrics. Women comprised an increasing proportion of authors over time and the gender gap in clinical neuropsychology is smaller than was recently reported for the broader field of psychology; nevertheless, the recent rates of women as authors lag behind the prevalence of women in clinical neuropsychology. Encouragingly, gender was not associated with the number of times an article was cited. Articles that included women in leadership roles had significantly more authors overall and specifically more women authors. Conclusions: Women are under-represented as authors in clinical neuropsychology journals, but they are becoming more common and their papers are cited just as frequently as men. Efforts to increase women as research mentors and sponsors may help to further close the publishing gender gap in clinical neuropsychology.
  • 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,
    The scientometrics of successful women in science
    (2016)
    Madlock-Brown, C.
    ;
    Eichmann, D.
    This paper examines the effects of gender differences in collaboration on research outcomes. We analyzed network characteristics of seventeen medical research institutions that are Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) to determine if network connectivity characteristics have the potential to help mitigate the performance gap between the sexes. We determined betweenness centrality to identify well-connected researchers. Then we used clustering coefficient to determine how tightly connected their collaborators were with each other. We correlate these scores with productivity (number of total publications for each author), and h-index (the number of papers h for which an author has h citations). We also provide data on how network characteristics vary by role for each gender studied. Our results indicate that being well connected is more highly correlated with success for women than men for most of the institutions we studied. We believe these results can be leveraged to improve success rates for women in the future. © 2016 IEEE.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity Trends in Authorship of Hand Surgery Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Xu, Raylin F.
    ;
    Varady, Nathan H.
    ;
    Chen, Antonia F.
    ;
    Earp, Brandon E.
    Purpose Despite an overall trend towards gender parity, women continue to remain underrepresented in surgical fields. Until recently, women’s representation in hand surgery literature was largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to examine how authorship gender trends among academic hand surgeons have evolved between 2006 and 2019. Methods Original research articles published from 2006 to 2019 in 3 leading clinical hand surgery journals were extracted from PubMed. Publications with a full author first name were analyzed, and the gender of each author was assigned with the validated Genderize algorithm. Analyses were performed to evaluate authorship publication trends, unique authors, and research career productivity. Results From 2006 to 2019, 4,769 articles met the inclusion criteria, and the genders of 17,102 authors were identified. There were 2,848 (16.6%) female authors and 14,254 (83.4%) male authors. The proportion of female authors increased from 13.4% to 19.9% from 2006 to 2019. Similarly, female representation as first and senior authors increased significantly, from 10.9% to 20.1% and 7.6% to 14.2%, respectively. Of the 8,417 unique authors, 1,775 (21.1%) were women and 6,642 (78.9%) were men. Only 3.3% of these unique female authors published 5 or more papers during the study period. Among the 10 most frequently published authors for each gender, 18 of the 20 authors were surgeons. Conclusions There has been substantial progress toward gender parity in academic hand surgery over the last 14 years, and the proportion of women publishing in leadership positions has increased. Clinical relevance Increased gender representation in medicine and research is important for both patients and providers, and these findings suggest that ongoing support and mentorship for women in academic careers should be a priority.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Who acknowledges who? A gender analysis
    (2019)
    Paul-Hus, A.
    ;
    Mongeon, P.
    ;
    Sainte-Marie, M.
    ;
    Larivière, V.
    Acknowledgements found in scholarly papers allow for credit attribution among non-authors—from individuals to organizations—that contributed to a piece of research. As such, they are associated with a different kind of recognition than authorship. While several studies have shown that social factors affect authorship and citation practices, few analyses have been performed on acknowledgements. Based on 878,250 acknowledgees mentioned in 291,167 papers published in 2015 retrieved from Web of Science, the objective of this work-in-progress is to better understand such credit attribution practices and how gender may influence them. Our results show that gender disparities generally found in authorship can be extended to acknowledgements, and that women are even more underrepresented in the acknowledgement than in the authors’ list of a paper. Our findings also confirm that women acknowledge proportionally more women. These results suggest that gender plays a role in the entire spectrum of credit attribution practices, from authorships to acknowledgements.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Comparison of the contributions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: a cross-sectional study Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Sociology, 2019)
    Gayet-Ageron, Angele
    ;
    Poncet, Antoine
    ;
    Perneger, Thomas
    Objectives The proportion of women engaged in clinical research has increased over time. However, it is unclear if women and men contribute to the same extent during the conduct of research and, if so, if they are equally rewarded by a strategic first or last author position. We aim to describe the prevalence of women authors of original articles published 15 years apart and to compare the research contributions and author positions according to gender. Design Repeated cross-sectional study. Setting Published original articles. Participants 1910 authors of 223 original articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 and 2015. Primary and secondary outcomes measures Self-reported contributions to 10 aspects of the article (primary) and author position on the byline. Results The proportion of women authors increased from 32% (n=243) to 41% (n=469) between 2000 and 2015 (p<0.0001). In 2000, women authors were less frequently involved than men in the conception and design (134 (55%) vs 323 (61%); p=0.0256), critical revision (171 (70%) vs 426 (81%); p=0.0009), final approval (196 (81%) vs 453 (86%); p=0.0381) and obtaining of funding (39 (16%) vs 114 (22%); p=0.0245). Women were more frequently involved than men in administration and logistics (85 (35%) vs 137 (26%); p=0.0188) and data collection (121 (50%) vs 242 (46%); p=0.0532), but they were similarly involved in the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, provision of materials/patients and statistical expertise. Women were less often last authors than men (22 (9%) vs 82 (16%); p=0.0102). These gender differences persisted in 2015. Conclusions The representation of women among authors of medical articles increased notably between 2000 and 2015, but still remained below 50%. Women’s roles differed from those of men with no change over time.