PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Europe

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Misra, Vaidehi
    ;
    Safi, Frozan
    ;
    Brewerton, Kathryn A.
    ;
    Wu, Wei
    ;
    Mason, Robin
    OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Merriman, Rebekah
    ;
    Galizia, Ilaria
    ;
    Tanaka, Sonja
    ;
    Sheffel, Ashley
    ;
    Buse, Kent
    INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric analysis of gender authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over 30 years of spine 1985 to 2015 Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Brinker, A.R.
    ;
    Liao, J.L.
    ;
    Kraus, K.R.
    ;
    Young, J.
    ;
    Sandelski, M.
    Study Design. A bibliometric analysis. Objective. The aim of this article was to study bibliometric changes over the last 30 years of Spine. These trends are important regarding academic publication productivity. Summary of Background Data. Inflation in authorship number and other bibliometric variables has been described in the scientific literature. The issue of author gender is taking on increasing importance, as efforts are being made to close the gender gap. Methods. From 1985 to 2015, 10-year incremental data for several bibliometric variables were collected, including author gender. Standard bivariate statistical analyses were performed. Trends over time were assessed by the Cochran linear trend. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. Inclusion criteria were met for 1566 manuscripts. The majority of the manuscripts were from North America (51.2%), Europe (25.2%), and Asia (20.8%). The number of manuscripts, authors, countries, pages, and references all increased from 1985 to 2015. There was a slight increase in female first authors over time (17.5% to 18.4%, P=0.048). There was no gender change over time for corresponding authors (14.3% to 14.0%, P=0.29). There was an 88% increase in the percentage of female first authors having male corresponding authors (P=0.00004), and a 123% increase in male first authors having female corresponding authors (P=0.0002). The 14% to 18% of female authors in Spine is higher than the ∼5% female membership of the Scoliosis Research Society and North American Spine Society. Conclusion. Manuscripts in Spine over the past 30 years have shown a significant increase in the number of authors, collaborating institutions and countries, printed pages, references, and number of times each manuscript was cited. There has been a mild increase in female first authorship, but none in corresponding authorship. Increases in female authorship will likely require recruitment of more females into the discipline rather than providing females in the discipline with authorship opportunities. Level of Evidence: N/A . Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    European Research Council: Excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Bautista-Puig, N.
    ;
    García-Zorita, C.
    ;
    Mauleón, E.
    European Research Council Grants (ERC) have become the most important vehicle for funding scientific research in the EU. Since their creation in 2007, they have provided funding for around 7,000 of the nearly 70,000 proposals for research projects submitted. With a success rate of about 11%, these Grants are highly competitive. Despite major advancement of women's participation in research activity, women overall remain the minority in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM disciplines). Against that backdrop, this article analyses men's and women's presence in ERC Grants. The gender balance in the ERC Grant, have been examined in three dimensions: Excellence Awarded; Scientific Leadership Position; and Time Series Evolution. The results show that female presence is lower than men as submitted (26% vs 74%), granted (22% vs 78%), expert panel members (28% vs 72%), and as a panel chair (26% vs 74%). State-space prediction of the future pattern of these grants shows that time has no clearly beneficial effect on women's participation as applicants, granted, expert panel members or panel chairs, particularly in the area of Physics and Engineering. © 2019 The Author(s).