PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.General MedicineSubject: search.filters.subject.Medicine

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Expanding focus: reimagining and broadening women’s leadership programs in academic medicine Open PDF 
    (Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025-12-03)
    Iyer, Maya S
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Singer, Kanakadurga
    ;
    Overholser, Barbara
    ;
    Spector, Nancy D
    In light of increasing legislation aimed at prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at publicly funded universities in the United States, women-only leadership programs (WOLPs) have come under increasing pressure, which could undermine gender equity advancements, particularly in academic medicine. Women-only leadership programs have traditionally offered a unique advantage for women over mixed-gender leadership programs by fostering psychologically safe spaces to share experiences, teaching leadership competencies while using a gender equity lens in areas where it makes sense, and providing essential support in the form of mentorship and sponsorship. Women-only leadership program participation is also ­associated with increased promotion rates, retention rates, and leadership roles. Given the current political environment, this is a pivotal moment—and a key opportunity—to elevate the work of WOLPs by expanding their reach to include all individuals who can benefit from their programming and help build a more inclusive and equitable field. To this end, WOLPs must reimagine, reframe, and rebrand their work to continue cultivating the future generation of health care leaders, focusing on a central tenet of WOLPs: different people have different experiences and are treated differently. As the national focus on DEI work evolves, it is imperative that WOLPs evolve and expand spaces for leadership development for all talented individuals to ensure that there continues to be progress in gender representation and leadership advancement.
  • 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, Reshma
    ;
    Andersen, Jens Peter
    Publications 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,
    Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women's reproductive physiology Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kalidasan, Dharani
    ;
    Goshtasebi, Azita
    ;
    Chrisler, Joan
    ;
    Brown, Helen L.
    ;
    Prior, Jerilynn C.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment. DESIGN: A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors. CONCLUSION: Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.