PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
12 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Changes in Gender Representation in Academic Grand Rounds Speakers During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF(SAGE Publications, 2025-03-27) ;Dereje, Abigail ;Ghebre, Rahel ;Sultan, Shanaz ;Langworthy, BenRheault, Michelle N.Introduction: Women are historically underrepresented as grand rounds speakers in US medical schools regardless of department. We hypothesized that the representation of women as grand rounds speakers would increase after the widespread adoption of virtual grand rounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We reviewed publicly available or individually provided grand round speaker lists for 2019, 2021, and 2022 from representative medical departments, surgical departments, and basic science departments of our local institution and the top 10 academic medical schools based on their national ranking according to the 2022 Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research Rankings of NIH Funding. Speaker gender was determined based on name and publicly available biographies. Results: In total, we identified 1995 speaking engagements from 10 institutions. All but six talks delivered post-COVID-19 pandemic were in hybrid or virtual-only format compared to exclusively in-person sessions pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, women accounted for 37.3% of invited speakers compared to 45.5% post-COVID. This increase in the representation of women as grand rounds speakers was consistent across all academic ranks and most departments. Conclusions: We propose that departments, particularly those with fewer women at baseline, should continue to offer at least some virtual grand rounds opportunities throughout the year with a goal of increasing the diversity of speakers and improving the access of their faculty to women speakers.Item type:Publication, Gender disparity in the authorship of biomedical research publications during the COVID-19 pandemic: Retrospective observational study Open PDF(2021) ;Muric, G. ;Lerman, K.Ferrara, E.Background: Gender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications. Objective: The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications. Methods: This is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results. Results: A total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases. Conclusions: Our findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics. © 2021 Journal of Medical Internet Research. All rights reserved.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, ReshmaAndersen, Jens PeterPublications 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, Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19 Open PDF(2021) ;Lerchenmüller, C. ;Schmallenbach, L. ;Jena, A.B.Lerchenmueller, M.J.Objective Concerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted research productivity to the disadvantage of women in academia, particularly in early career stages. In this study, we aimed to assess the pandemic's effect on women's COVID-19-related publishing over the first year of the pandemic. Methods and results We compared the gender distribution of first authorships for 42 898 publications on COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 to 483 232 publications appearing in the same journals during the same period the year prior. We found that the gender gap - the percentage of articles on which men versus women were first authors - widened by 14 percentage points during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite many pertinent research fields showing near equal proportions of men and women first authors publishing in the same fields before the pandemic. Longitudinal analyses revealed that the significant initial expansions of the gender gap began to trend backwards to expected values over time in many fields. As women may have been differentially affected depending on their geography, we also assessed the gender distribution of first authorships grouped by countries and geographical areas. While we observed a significant reduction of the shares of women first authors in almost all countries, longitudinal analyses confirmed a resolving trend over time. Conclusion The reduction in women's COVID-19-related research output appears particularly concerning as many disciplines informing the response to the pandemic had near equal gender shares of first authorship in the year prior to the pandemic. The acute productivity drain with the onset of the pandemic magnifies deep-rooted obstacles on the way to gender equity in scientific contribution. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Item type:Publication, Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review Open PDF(2024) ;Kamran, Rakhshan ;Jackman, Liam ;Chan, Cynthia ;Lee, Ann C.Kamran, AleezaBACKGROUND: Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). CONCLUSION: This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.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, Author Gender Inequality in Medical Imaging Journals and the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF(2021) ;Quak, E. ;Girault, G. ;Thenint, M.A. ;Weyts, K.Lequesne, J.Background: Early reports show the unequal effect the COVID-19 pandemic might have on men versus women engaged in medical research. Purpose: To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on scientific publishing by female physicians in medical imaging. Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of the gender of the first and last authors of manuscripts submitted to the top 50 medical imaging journals from March to May 2020 (n = 2480) compared with the same period of the year in 2018 (n = 2238) and 2019 (n = 2355). Manuscript title, date of submission, first and last names of the first and last authors, journal impact factor, and author country of provenance were recorded. The Gender-API software was used to determine author gender. Statistical analysis comprised x2 tests and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Percentages of women listed as first and last authors were 31.6% (1172 of 3711 articles) and 19.3% (717 of 3711 articles), respectively, in 2018–2019 versus 32.3% (725 of 2248 articles) and 20.7% (465 of 2248 articles) in 2020 (P = .61 and P = .21, respectively). For COVID-19-related articles, 35.2% (89 of 253 articles) of first authors and 20.6% (52 of 253 articles) of last authors were women. No associations were found between first- and last-author gender, year of publication, and region of provenance. First and last authorship of high-ranking articles was not in favor of North American women whatever the year (odds ratio [OR], 0.79 [P = .05] and 0.72 [P = .02], respectively). Higher rates of female last authorship of high-ranking articles were observed in Europe (P = .003) and of female first authorship of low-ranking publications in Asia in 2020 (OR, 1.38; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.92; P = .06). Female first and last authorship of COVID-19–related articles was overrepresented for lowest-rank publications (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). Conclusion: One in three first authors and one in five last authors were women in 2018–2019 and 2020, respectively. Although the first 2020 lockdown did not diminish the quantity of women-authored publications, the impact on the quality was variable. ©RSNA, 2021Item type:Publication, Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: Cross sectional study Open PDF(2021) ;Gayet-Ageron, A. ;Ben Messaoud, K. ;Richards, M.Schroter, S.AbstractObjective To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. Design Cross sectional study. Setting Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. Population Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: first author's gender. Secondary outcomes: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic"period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19"and "non-covid-19"manuscripts during pandemic. Results A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. Conclusions Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic. ©Item type:Publication, Seeking Gender Equity in Pharmacy Academia(2023) ;Devraj, R ;Warholak, TPlanas, LGGender inequity is a critical diversity, equity, and inclusion issue that has continued to lead to workplace disparities. While gender-based differences in pay are well documented, there are multiple other facets of academic worklife (eg, teaching, research, service, resources, etc) wherein gender inequities exist but have never been systematically identified or reported. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these inequities. One reason for continued existence of gender disparities in the workplace is lack of focused attention and emphasis on this issue. A recently formed Gender Equity Task Force has taken the first steps to systematically explore gender inequity in all areas of academic pharmacy worklife. The purpose of this Commentary is to highlight the scope of the problem of gender inequity in pharmacy academia and offer solutions that the Academy can implement to mitigate the impact of gender inequity in the future.Item type:Publication, Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF(INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences, 2022) ;Cui, R. ;Ding, H.Zhu, F.Problem definition: We study the disproportionate impact of the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak on female and male academic research productivity in social science. Academic/practical relevance: The lockdown has caused substantial disruptions to academic activities, requiring people to work from home. How this disruption affects productivity and the related gender equity is an important operations and societal question. Methodology: We collect data from the largest open-access preprint repository for social science on 41,858 research preprints in 18 disciplines produced by 76,832 authors across 25 countries over a span of two years. We use a difference-in-differences approach leveraging the exogenous pandemic shock. Results: Our results indicate that, in the 10 weeks after the lockdown in the United States, although total research productivity increased by 35%, female academics’ productivity dropped by 13.2% relative to that of male academics. We also show that this intensified productivity gap is more pronounced for assistant professors and for academics in top-ranked universities and is found in six other countries. Managerial implications: Our work points out the fairness issue in productivity caused by the lockdown, a finding that universities will find helpful when evaluating faculty productivity. It also helps organizations realize the potential unintended consequences that can arise from telecommuting. © 2021 INFORMS