PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Covid-19Subject: search.filters.subject.Bibliometrics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Jemielniak, D.
    ;
    Sławska, A.
    ;
    Wilamowski, M.
    The authors wanted to verify a popular belief that women scholars have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the first names of authors of 266,409 articles from 2813 journals in 21 disciplines, and we found no significant differences between men and women in publication patterns between 2021, 2020, and 2019 overall. However, we found significant differences in publication patterns between gender in different disciplines. In addition, in disciplines where the proportion of women authors is higher, there are fewer single-authored articles. In the multi-author articles if the first author is female, there is more gender balance among authors, although there are still fewer women co-authors. © The Author(s) 2022.
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 and Gender Differences in Family Medicine Scholarship Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Wright, K.M.
    ;
    Wheat, S.
    ;
    Clements, D.S.
    ;
    Edberg, D.
    This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted submission rates to Annals of Family Medicine by gender. Women represented 46.3% of all manuscript submissions included in our study (n = 1,964/4,238), spanning from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2020. The overall volume of submissions increased during COVID-19 in comparison to pre-pandemic months; however, this increase was not evenly distributed among men and women (122% increase vs 101% increase, respectively). In the early months of the pandemic, 244 submissions were authored by men (58.5%), and 173 submissions were authored by women (41.5%). The gap in women’s submission rates is troubling, as it suggests they may be at greater risk of falling behind male colleagues during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2022, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation in Authorship of Academic Dermatology Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Szeto, Mindy D.
    ;
    Laughter, Melissa R.
    ;
    Maymone, Mayra B. C.
    ;
    Patel, Payal M.
    ;
    Sivesind, Torunn E.
    Analyses of women dermatology literature authorship from 2018 to 2022 reveal a slight increase in total female authors, female first authors, and female senior authors with no substantial immediate impact of COVID-19 on current trends, encouraging future examination of long-term effects and ongoing promotion of systemic initiatives to support gender equity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina
    ;
    Peters, Sanne
    ;
    Thompson, Kelly
    ;
    Hockham, Carinna
    ;
    Ripullone, Katherine
    Women account for about a third of all authors who published papers related to COVID-19 since the beginning of the outbreak in January 2020. Women’s representation is lower still for first and last authorship positions. Gender biases seem to be affecting COVID-19 research similar to other scientific areas, highlighting that women are consistently being under-represented. This may have implications for the availability and interrogation of sex-disaggregated data and therefore our understanding of COVID-19. These gender biases hint at wider gender inequalities in our global response to the pandemic, which may reduce the chance of dealing with it robustly and speedily. Women are under-represented as authors of research papers in many scientific areas, particularly in senior authorship positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Publication Authorship During COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Cardiology Journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    DeFilippis, Ersilia M.
    ;
    Sinnenberg, Lauren
    ;
    Mahmud, Nadim
    ;
    Wood, Malissa J.
    ;
    Hayes, Sharonne N.
    Background The purpose of this study was to examine gender differences in authorship of manuscripts in select high-impact cardiology journals during the early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods and Results All manuscripts published between March 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019 and March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 in 4 high-impact cardiology journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, JAMA Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) were identified using bibliometric data. Authors' genders were determined by matching first name with predicted gender using a validated multinational database (Genderize.io) and manual adjudication. Proportions of women and men first, co-first, senior, and co-senior authors, manuscript types, and whether the manuscript was COVID-19 related were recorded. In 2019, women were first authors of 176 (22.3%) manuscripts and senior authors of 99 (15.0%) manuscripts. In 2020, women first authored 230 (27.4%) manuscripts and senior authored 138 (19.3%) manuscripts. Proportions of woman first and senior authors were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019. Women were more likely to be first authors if the manuscript's senior author was a woman (33.8% for woman first/woman senior versus 23.4% for woman first/man senior; P<0.001). Women were less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts (P=0.04). Conclusions Representation of women as key authors of manuscripts published in major cardiovascular journals increased during the early COVID-19 pandemic compared with similar months in 2019. However, women were significantly less likely to be first authors of COVID-19-related original research manuscripts. Future investigation into the gender-disparate impacts of COVID-19 on academic careers is critical.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is the scientific impact of the LIS themes gender-biased? A bibliometric analysis of the evolution, scientific impact, and relative contribution by gender from 2007 to 2022 Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Choji, T.T.
    ;
    Cobo, M.J.
    ;
    Moral-Munoz, J.A.
    Gender equity remains a challenge both globally and within academia, despite recent efforts to change it. Moreover, beyond the authors’ productivity, studies have reported that women often achieve lower scientific impact than their peers. To shed light on this complex relationship between the scientific impact and the themes addressed, this study conducts a comprehensive analysis of Library and Information Science field from 2007 to 2022 in four consecutive slides, identifying the principal themes covered in the field, analyzing the relative gender contribution rate, employing strategic diagrams, and assessing impact metrics, such as mean normalized citation score, 1% of most cited papers, and H-Classic. We employed science mapping analysis to explore a core of 45,650 documents from the Web of Science, with gender identification in 94.25% of cases. Our findings revealed a slight increase in the percentage of women authors within the field across the time, and a decline during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating consistency in the themes addressed over the years. Women were overrepresented in the classic themes of LIS, human, and health-related fields, with these themes displaying lower performance rates. In contrast, men authors were overrepresented in STEM-related fields and innovation themes, associated with higher metric values. Our findings underlined the potential association between research themes and scientific performance, and provide societal and structural explanations for these observations. This study contributes valuable insights into the relationship between research themes and the scientific impact achieved by researchers in LIS, highlighting the importance of encouraging women’s participation in diverse knowledge domains and challenging prevailing stereotypes within academic and professional spheres. © The Author(s) 2024.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Was the COVID-19 Pandemic Associated with Gender Disparities in Authorship of Manuscripts Submitted to Clinical Neuropsychology Journals? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Babicz, M.A.
    ;
    Matchanova, A.
    ;
    Broomfield, R.
    ;
    Desruisseaux, L.A.
    ;
    Gereau, M.M.
    Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals. Method: Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender. Results: Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field. Conclusions: Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic. Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2021.