PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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,
    Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sebo, Paul
    ;
    Clair, Carole
    BACKGROUND: Besides the number of publications, the number of citations is another key metric often used to compare researchers with each other. While women researchers tend to have fewer publications than their men colleagues, the data is scarce for the number of citations. We aimed to determine whether there is a gender gap in citations. METHODS: We used Web of Science to retrieve the number of citations per year for all research articles and reviews published between January 2015 and December 2019 in fourteen high-impact general medical journals (impact factor > 5). We used Gender API to identify the gender of the first/last authors. We compared the results by gender using multivariable negative binomial regressions (adjusting for intra-cluster correlations within journals). RESULTS: The gender of the first/last author was determined for 13,218/13,350 (99%) and 11,894/12,026 (99%) articles, respectively. The proportion of women among first/last authors was 40% and 29%, respectively. The median number of citations per year was 5 (IQR = 11.3) for women and 6.8 (IQR = 17.8) for men for first authors (IRR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3-1.8], p value < 0.001), and 6 (IQR = 12.4) and 7.5 (IQR = 17.4) for last authors (IRR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.2-1.5], p value < 0.001). Articles whose first and last authors were women were the least cited and those whose first and last authors were men were the most cited. CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, we found that articles authored by women were cited less often than those authored by men. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these gender differences in article citations.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contribution of women authors in French medical journals from 1983 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Schohn, A.
    ;
    Wathelet, M.
    ;
    Noël, G.
    Purpose: Despite the feminization of the medical profession, the academic world remains largely male-dominated. Several studies conducted in the English-speaking world have shown that women are published less than men. Our goal is to define the evolution of the role of women in five French medical journals. Materials and methods: The articles from five French journals (Revue du Praticien, Bulletin du Cancer, Exercer, Presse Médicale, Cancer/Radiothérapie) published in February between 1983 and 2019 were included. We selected twelve years from that period of time. The analysis was completed using Cochran-Armitage tests with a significance level of < 0,05. Among the authors, 4397 were included in total and we were able to determine the gender of 4309 of them. Results: The percentage of female authors went from 16% in 1983 to 36.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). This rise is more significant for those specializing in surgery than for those specializing in medicine, with a percentage going from 14% to 38.5% (p < 0.001) against 16.8% to 35.4% (p < 0.001) respectively. In 2019, women still only represent 30.2% of the last authors, 27.6% of editorial authors and 30.6% of corresponding authors. Conclusion: Our study underlines a significant increase in the number of female authors and highlights that their position as authors remains on the margins of the most prestigious authorial positions. While we can celebrate this increase, we nevertheless notice that there are fewer female authors than female practitioners. © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Cassia-Silva, C
    ;
    Rocha, BS
    ;
    Lievano-Latorre, LF
    ;
    Sobreiro, MB
    ;
    Diele-Viegas, LM
    Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.