PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 19

Older people care increases the gender gap in academia Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-09-29)
Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario
;
Martín-López, Berta
;
Sala-Bubaré, Anna
;
Anton-Pardo, María
;
Catalan, Nuria
Caring for older and for adults with disabilities is nowadays a social challenge for Western societies. However, little research has focused on the role of women as carers of that social group and their personal and professional consequences, particularly in academia. We explore the impact of caring for the older and adults with disabilities on Spanish scholar from a gender perspective. We conducted 36 semi-structured open-ended interviews (24 women, 12 men). Our research finds that, caring for the older and adults with disabilities has costs and implications for scholar on a personal and professional levels, but significantly more for women compared to men. Women often reported more physical and mental health problems than men. In addition, women, reported that their profession was affected by caring for the older people and that they compromised their quality of life mainly in terms of loss of leisure time. Strategies for coping during difficult periods of caregiving differed between genders, whereby women reported reaching out to support networks. At the institutional level, older care is an 'invisible' problem, for which interviewees reported not getting any support from their institutions. The study reveals how caring for older people and adults with disabilities adds yet another role and responsibility to women's dual role as mothers and scholars, leading to "invisible", often unnamed, impacts on their personal and professional lives: the "triple presence". Given that the study was conducted in a specific context (Spanish scientists in the fields of environmental science and sustainability), future studies in other geographical areas will be needed to corroborate current findins.
Publication bias and merit in ecology Open PDF
(2007)
Lortie, C. J.
;
Aarssen, L. W.
;
Budden, A. E.
;
Koricheva, J. K.
;
Leimu, R.
Bias, or any set of factors that influence the general expression of merit, is common in science and is an inevitable by-product of an imperfect but otherwise reasonably objective human pursuit to understand the world we inhabit. In this paper, we explore the conceptual significance of a relatively tractable form of bias, namely publication and dissemination bias. A specific definition is developed, a working model of classification for publication bias is proposed, and an assessment of what we can measure is described. Finally, we offer expectations for ecologists with respect to the significance of bias in the publication process within our discipline. We argue that without explicit consideration of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of publication bias in ecology, we limit our capacity to fairly assess and best use the science that we as a community produce.
The domestic basis of the scientific career: gender inequalities in ecology in France and Norway Open PDF
(SAGE Publications Inc, 2017)
Loison, A.
;
Paye, S.
;
Schermann, A.
;
Bry, C.
;
Gaillard, J.-M.
Gender-related inequalities in scientific careers are widespread, evidenced by the attrition of women along the different stages of the promotion ladder. We studied the interwoven personal and professional trajectories of researchers in ecology and compared these trajectories between France and Norway. Given their differing welfare state policies and work/family regimes, we expected contrasts in the depth and modalities of the gender gap. We focused on the career consequences of time-use inequalities in the workplace and in the private sphere (domestic tasks and parental care). We find a more frequent assignment of women to less-valued tasks at work (e.g. teaching) and pronounced gender differences in the involvement in domestic and parental tasks, especially in France. Age at promotion and probability to be promoted differed between gender in both countries and more so in France, women being less promoted and promoted later than men. This gender gap was particularly discriminating women with children, when they were either single or with a partner who also was a researcher. These differences are mainly due to a lower scientific productivity of women when they get children. These analyses raise a number of questions on welfare policies and on the definition of academic standards of peer judgment within local employment policies in universities. © 2016, © The Author(s) 2016.
Gender in sustainability research: Inclusion, intersectionality, and patterns of knowledge production Open PDF
(2021)
Khalikova, V.R.
;
Jin, M.
;
Chopra, S.S.
This cross-disciplinary study examines gender inclusion and intersectionality in the knowledge production of sustainability research. Building on studies of gender inclusion as essential for quality research, we develop a three-step framework that analyzes the socio-demographic profile of researchers (sustainability by whom?), key research trajectories (sustainability of what?), and beneficiaries of sustainability research (sustainability for whom?). Our methods include a survey and a bibliometric analysis. The survey was administered at the joint conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecology and the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology in 2017. The survey results show gendered differences in collaboration patterns. The survey results also indicated a good level of gender inclusion among the experts in this field, but the bibliometric analysis showed that gender issues remain marginal in the studies of industrial ecology. In contrast to industrial ecology, we found increasing attention to gender in other areas of sustainability research (climate change, corporate social responsibility, food production, resource management, energy policy, and environmental behavior and education), but even there, “gender” tends to be equated with “women” in traditional gender roles, ignoring the role of intersectionality—the intersection of gender with income, age, and other demographic characteristics. Therefore, this study makes recommendations to approach gender critically, by using theoretical lenses from gender studies scholarship (i.e., gender as a constructed, intersectional, dynamic category). We show how these lenses enable better assessments of the environmental impacts of industrial processes on people of diverse backgrounds in the context of changing patterns of work and consumption. © 2021 by Yale University.
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.
Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology?
(2014)
Hannah, L. Buckley
;
Sciligo, R. Sciligo
;
Adair, Karen L.
;
Case, Bradley S.
;
Monks, Joanne M.
Gender bias in the sciences is a prominent issue. Evidence suggests that more equal involvement of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields leads to a diversity of working styles that can contribute to multiple measures of workplace success, such as better student outcomes in university settings and improved managerial approaches. One of the main ways we can combat gender bias is by increasing awareness.
Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers Open PDF
(2021)
Van Der Wal, J.E.M.
;
Thorogood, R.
;
Horrocks, N.P.C.
Collaboration and diversity are increasingly promoted in science. Yet how collaborations influence academic career progression, and whether this differs by gender, remains largely unknown. Here, we use co-authorship ego networks to quantify collaboration behaviour and career progression of a cohort of contributors to biennial International Society of Behavioral Ecology meetings (1992, 1994, 1996). Among this cohort, women were slower and less likely to become a principal investigator (PI; approximated by having at least three last-author publications) and published fewer papers over fewer years (i.e. had shorter academic careers) than men. After adjusting for publication number, women also had fewer collaborators (lower adjusted network size) and published fewer times with each co-author (lower adjusted tie strength), albeit more often with the same group of collaborators (higher adjusted clustering coefficient). Authors with stronger networks were more likely to become a PI, and those with less clustered networks did so more quickly. Women, however, showed a stronger positive relationship with adjusted network size (increased career length) and adjusted tie strength (increased likelihood to become a PI). Finally, early-career network characteristics correlated with career length. Our results suggest that large and varied collaboration networks are positively correlated with career progression, especially for women. © 2021 The Authors.
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.
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.
Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution Open PDF
(2019)
Fox, Charles W.
;
Paine, C. E. Timothy
The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results