PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Ecology and EvolutionSubject: search.filters.subject.Authorship

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Distribution Associated With the Journal Wilderness & Environmental Medicine Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Keyes, Linda E.
    ;
    Schlein, Sarah M.
    ;
    Brown, Alainna B.
    ;
    Polukoff, Natalya E.
    ;
    Byrne, Alicia
    INTRODUCTION: Publication and peer review are fundamental to career advancement in science and academic medicine. Studies demonstrate that women are underrepresented in science publishing. We evaluated the gender distribution of contributors to Wilderness & Environmental Medicine (WEM) from 2010 through 2019. METHODS: We extracted author data from ScienceDirect, reviewer data from the WEM Editorial Manager database, and editorial board data from journal records. Gender (female and male) was classified using automated probability-based assessment with Genderize.io software. RESULTS: A total of 2297 unique authors were published over the 10-y span, generating 3613 authorships, of which gender was classified for 96% (n=3480). Women represented 26% (n=572) of all authors, which breaks down to 22% of all, 19% of first, 28% of second, and 18% of last authorships. Women represented 20% of peer reviewers (508/2517), 20% of reviewers-in-training (19/72), and 16% of editorial board members (7/45). The proportion of female authors, first authors, and reviewers increased over time. Women received fewer invitations per reviewer than men (mean 2.1 [95% CI 2.0-2.3] vs 2.4 [95% CI 2.3-2.5]; P=0.004), accepted reviews at similar rates (mean 73 vs 71%; P=0.214), and returned reviews 1.4 d later (mean 10.4 [CI 9.5-11.3] vs 9.0 d [95% CI 8.5-9.6]; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: While female representation increased over the study period, women comprise a minority of WEM authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Gender equity could be improved by identifying and eliminating barriers to participation, addressing any potential bias in review processes, implementing strategies to increase female-authored submissions, and increasing mentorship and training.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in the refereeing process? Open PDF 
    (2002)
    Tregenza, Tom
    Scientists are measured by their publications. Yet anonymous peer review is far from transparent. Does bias lurk within the refereeing process? Investigating the outcomes of manuscript submissions suggests that the overall process is not sexist, but differences in acceptance rates across journals according to gender of the first author give grounds for caution. Manuscripts with more authors and by native English speakers are more successful; whether this is due to bias remains to be seen.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in ecology and zoology. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Salerno, Patricia E.
    ;
    Páez-Vacas, Mónica
    ;
    Guayasamin, Juan M.
    ;
    Stynoski, Jennifer L.
    Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts-especially by male senior authors-are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Fontanarrosa, Gabriela
    ;
    Zarbá, Lucía
    ;
    Aschero, Valeria
    ;
    Dos Santos, Daniel Andrés
    ;
    Nuñez Montellano, María Gabriela
    Biographical features like social and economic status, ethnicity, sexuality, care roles, and gender unfairly disadvantage individuals within academia. Authorship patterns should reflect the social dimension behind the publishing process and co-authorship dynamics. To detect potential gender biases in the authorship of papers and examine the extent of women's contribution in terms of the substantial volume of scientific production in Ecology, we surveyed papers from the top-ranked journal Ecology from 1999 to 2021. We developed a Women's Contribution Index (WCI) to measure gender-based individual contributions. Considering gender, allocation in the author list, and the total number of authors, the WCI calculates the sum of each woman's contribution per paper. We compared the WCI with women's expected contributions in a non-gender-biased scenario. Overall, women account for 30% of authors of Ecology, yet their contribution to papers is higher than expected by chance (i.e., over-contribution). Additionally, by comparing the WCI with an equivalent Men's Contribution Index, we found that women consistently have higher contributions compared to men. We also observed a temporal trend of increasing women's authorship and mixed-gender papers. This suggests some progress in addressing gender bias in the field of ecology. However, we emphasize the need for a better understanding of the pattern of over-contribution, which may partially stem from the phenomenon of over-compensation. In this context, women might need to outperform men to be perceived and evaluated as equals. The WCI provides a valuable tool for quantifying individual contributions and understanding gender biases in academic publishing. Moreover, the index could be customized to suit the specific question of interest. It serves to uncover a previously non-quantified type of bias (over-contribution) that, we argue, is the response to the inequitable structure of the scientific system, leading to differences in the roles of individuals within a scientific publishing team.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2018)
    Edwards, Hannah A.
    ;
    Schroeder, Julia
    ;
    Dugdale, Hannah L.
    The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal.