PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10

A Data-Based Approach to Evaluating Representation by Gender and Affiliation in Key Presentation Formats at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research Open PDF
(2021)
Nobles, C.J.
;
Lu, Y.-L.
;
Andriessen, V.C.
;
Bevan, S.S.
;
Radoc, J.G.
The annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) is a major forum for sharing new research and promoting the career development of participants. Because of this, evaluating representation in key presentation formats is critical. For the 3,257 presentations identified at the 2015-2017 SER annual meetings, we evaluated presenter characteristics, including gender, affiliation, subject area, and h-index, and representation in 3 highlighted presentation formats: platform talks (n = 382), invited symposium talks (n = 273), and chairing a concurrent contributed session or symposium (n = 188). Data were abstracted from SER records, abstract booklets, and programs. Gender was assessed using GenderChecker software, and h-index was determined using the Scopus application programming interface. Log-binomial models were adjusted for participant characteristics and conference year. In adjusted models, women were less likely than men to present an invited symposium talk (relative risk = 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 0.81) compared with all participants with accepted abstracts. Researchers from US public universities, US government institutions, and international institutions were less likely to present a symposium talk or to chair a concurrent contributed session or symposium than were researchers from US private institutions. The research areas that were most represented in platform talks were epidemiologic methods, social epidemiology, and cardiovascular epidemiology. Our findings suggest differences in representation by gender, affiliation, and subject area after accounting for h-index. © 2021 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Gender Gap in Scientific Publications on COVID-19 in Italy During the First Wave of the Pandemic: An Observational Study Open PDF
(2022)
Mazzalai, Elena
;
Turatto, Federica
;
De Vito, Corrado
Background: Worldwide, concerns rise on how COVID-19 pandemic impacted heavily on women, even on those belonging to the scientific community. The Italian scientific production regarding the COVID-19 throughout the first months of the health emergency could help to understand the heft of female researchers in this unique period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the gender gap in the scientific production on COVID-19 in Italy during the first months of the pandemic. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted and, for each included study, first and last author's gender, type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation, journal's Impact Factor (IF) and specialization were extracted. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. Results: 22.2% of the articles were signed by a woman as first author, 18.1% as last authors. Female authorship was less frequent than male authorship regardless of the type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation and field of specialization. Conclusion: This analysis reveal a low prevalence of studies with a female first or last author and suggests that the low share of female authors publishing on COVID-19 during the considered timespan is a transversal issue throughout the Italian medical field.
Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals Open PDF
(2019)
Thomas, E.G.
;
Jayabalasingham, B.
;
Collins, T.
;
Geertzen, J.
;
Bui, C.
Importance: In peer-reviewed medical journals, authoring an invited commentary on an original article is a recognition of expertise. It has been documented that women author fewer invited publications than men do. However, it is unknown whether this disparity is due to gender differences in characteristics that are associated with invitations, such as field of expertise, seniority, and scientific output. Objective: To estimate the odds ratio (OR) of authoring an invited commentary for women compared with men who had similar expertise, seniority, and publication metrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched case-control study included all medical invited commentaries published from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, in English-language medical journals and multidisciplinary journals. Invited commentaries were defined as publications that cite another publication within the same journal volume and issue. Bibliometric data were obtained from Scopus. Cases were defined as corresponding authors of invited commentaries in a given journal during the study period. Controls were matched to cases based on scientific expertise by calculating a similarity index for abstracts published during the same period using natural language processing. Data analyses were conducted from March 13, 2019, through May 3, 2019. Exposure: Corresponding or sole author gender was predicted from author first name and country of origin using genderize.io. Main Outcomes and Measures: The OR for gender was estimated after adjusting for field of expertise, publication output, citation impact, and years active (ie, years since first publication), with an interaction between gender and years active. Results: The final data set included 43235 cases across 2549 journals; there were 34047 unique intraciting commentary authors, among whom 9072 (26.6%) were women. For researchers who had been active for the median of 19 years, the odds of invited commentary authorship were 21% lower for women (OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]; P <.001) compared with men who had similar scientific expertise, number of publications, and citation impact. For every decile increase in years active, the OR decreased by a factor of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, women had lower odds of authoring invited commentaries than their male peers. This disparity was larger for senior researchers. Journal editors could use natural language processing of published research to widen and diversify the pool of experts considered for commentary invitations. © 2019 Thomas EG et al. JAMA Network Open.
Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014 Open PDF
(2020)
Thelwall, M.
Initiatives addressing the lack of women in many academic fields, and the general lack of senior women, need to be informed about the causes of any gender differences that may affect career progression, including citation impact. Previous research about gender differences in journal article citation impact has found the direction of any difference to vary by country and field, but has usually avoided discussions of the magnitude and wider significance of any differences and has not been systematic in terms of fields and/or time. This study investigates differences in citation impact between male and female first-authored research for 27 broad fields and six large English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) from 1996 to 2014. The results show an overall female first author citation advantage, although in most broad fields it is reversed in all countries for some years. International differences include Medicine having a female first author citation advantage for all years in Australia, but a male citation advantage for most years in Canada. There was no general trend for the gender difference to increase or decrease over time. The average effect size is small, however, and unlikely to have a substantial influence on overall gender differences in researcher careers. © 2020 Mike Thelwall. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles Open PDF
(2022)
Sketris, I.S.
;
Traynor, R.L.
;
Helwig, M.
;
Burland, E.
;
Stewart, S.A.
Purpose: The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them. Methods: CNODES articles (published 2012–2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to “indeterminate.” T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature. Results: Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles. Conclusions: This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
The Changing Face of Epidemiology: Gender Disparities in Citations? Open PDF
(2017)
Schisterman, E.F.
;
Swanson, C.W.
;
Lu, Y.-L.
;
Mumford, S.L.
Background: Female biomedical scientists tend to publish fewer articles as last author than their male colleagues and accrue fewer citations per publication. We seek to understand whether epidemiology follows this pattern. Methods: We gathered aggregate information on the current gender distribution of epidemiology departments (n = 29 of 71 surveyed), societies (n = 4 of 8), and journal editorial boards (n = 6 of 6) using two online surveys and publicly available online information. Bibliometric data from 4,149 articles published between 2008 and 2012 in six high-impact epidemiology journals were drawn from Web of Science and PubMed. Results: We observed a higher prevalence of female than male doctoral students and epidemiology faculty, particularly at lower faculty ranks. A total of 54% of society members were female. Among editorial boards, all current and emeritus editors-in-chief were male and board membership was largely male (64%). Females were more likely to be first authors, but less likely to be last authors. There were no differences in accrued citations at the 50th percentile by first or last author gender. However, articles with male first and last authors tend to accrue more citations (5.7 citations, 95% CI: 2.1, 9.4), mostly driven by the most highly cited articles. This disparity is not fully explained by potential confounders, including seniority. Conclusions: We found a greater number of female epidemiologists in early-career positions and further evidence of potential gender disparity in publication metrics in epidemiology. If epidemiology continues to be practiced by a majority of women, it remains to be seen if these patterns will change over time. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
A framework to analyse gender bias in epidemiological research Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2007)
Ruiz-Cantero, M.T.
;
Vives-Cases, C.
;
Artazcoz, L.
;
Delgado, A.
;
Calvente, M.D.M.G.
The design and analysis of research may cause systematic gender dependent errors to be produced in results because of gender insensitivity or androcentrism. Gender bias in research could be defined as a systematically erroneous gender dependent approach related to social construct, which incorrectly regards women and men as similar/different. Most gender bias can be found in the context of discovery (development of hypotheses), but it has also been found in the context of justification (methodological process), which must be improved. In fact, one of the main effects of gender bias in research is partial or incorrect knowledge in the results, which are systematically different from the real values.This paper discusses some forms of conceptual and methodological bias that may affect women's health. It proposes a framework to analyse gender bias in the design and analysis of research carried out on women's and men's health problems, and on specific women's health issues.Using examples, the framework aims to show the different theoretical perspectives in a social or clinical research context where forms of selection, measurement and confounding bias are produced as a result of gender insensitivity. Finally, this paper underlines the importance of reexamining results so that they may be reinterpreted to produce new gender based knowledge.
Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example Open PDF
(1998)
Dickersin, K.
;
Fredman, L.
;
Flegal, K. M.
;
Scott, J. D.
;
Crawley, B.
CONTEXT: Editors, authors, and reviewers are influential in shaping science. The careers of women in public health have received less scrutiny than those of women in medicine and other branches of science. The performance of women as editors, authors, and reviewers in epidemiology has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes over time in the representation of women at the editorial level in US epidemiology journals compared with the proportion of women authors and reviewers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of 4 US epidemiology journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, Annals of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (formerly the Journal of Chronic Diseases), for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1994. SUBJECTS: Editors, authors, and reviewers for the selected years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sex of editors, authors, and reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 2415 reports associated with 8005 authors. One of 7 editors in chief was a woman, a position she shared with a man. For all journals, the proportion of editors who were women ranged from 5 (6.5%) of 77 in 1982 to 42 (16.3%) of 258 in 1994. Over all journals and all years, women comprised a higher proportion of authors (28.7% [2225/7743]) compared with reviewers (26.7% [796/2982]) or editors (12.8% [89/696]). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer women in public health hold editorial positions than are authors and reviewers. The reasons for this important discrepancy, including the possibility of a selection bias favoring men, should be further investigated.
Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process? Open PDF
(2003)
Del Carmen Davo, M.
;
Vives, C.
;
Alvarez-Dardet, C.
The quality of peer review is an essential part of the scientific process1 and nowadays its evaluation is an emergent area of research. The gender perspective is however, still rarely integrated in this kind of study. There is empirical evidence about sex bias in choosing referees. Women are still less required by editors than men in peer review processes. As other studies have shown, male reviewers took significantly longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts and male reviewers recommend acceptance and rejection at higher rates than their female counterparts, who were more prone to revisions. The under use of women as reviewers seems then not justified by any quality criteria, as has been shown as well by the measurement of variables of time to answer and referees recommendations to authors. In addition, the promotion of gender parity in the peer review process could contribute to a reduction in the traditional invisibility of women in scientific knowledge development. This study has been done with the main objective to detect gender bias in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) peer review process and to identify differences, if any, between peer reviews with a gender perspective. The analysis includes the editors perceived quality of the review plus the other variables suggested by other studies as time to answer and referees recommendations to authors.
Gender equity in epidemiology: a policy brief Open PDF
(2019)
Aldrich, Melinda C.
;
Cust, Anne E.
;
Raynes-Greenow, Camille
;
International Network for Epidemiology in Policy
The under-representation of women in leadership in scientific fields presents a serious problem. Gender diversity is integral to innovation and productivity, and inequality leads to loss of gender talent in science including epidemiology. This policy brief summarizes some of the key dimensions and determinants contributing to gender-equity gaps in epidemiology and other scientific fields, relevant to developed countries where there is more published evidence. Women in scientific fields hold fewer positions on editorial boards, lack equal representation in speaking engagements at conferences, and are less likely to publish or receive top tier grant funding. Reasons for these inequities range from unconscious bias, biased promotion systems, and traditional norms in the division of family life and labor in our society leading to the attrition of women in academia. Addressing the problem of gender inequity, as a component of gender inequality, will provide an ethical basis to advance innovation. Data on gender equity in the field of epidemiology are sparse. We call on academic institutions, professional societies and associations, and editorial boards relevant to epidemiology (as well as other academic disciplines more broadly) to take meaningful action to build an evidence base as to the extent of gender inequities in epidemiologic research, teaching, policy, and practice. We outline some of the necessary steps required to achieve gender equity, such as career development and mentoring programs, institutional support, and programs to address bias.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results