PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesSubject: search.filters.subject.Citations

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research evaluation. Part II: Gender effects of evaluation: Are men more productive and more cited than women? Open PDF 
    (2012)
    Hildrun, K.
    ;
    Alexander, P.
    ;
    Johannes, S.
    Productivity and citedness of the staff of a German medical research institution are analyzed. It was found in our previous study (Pudovkin et al.: Scientometrics, doi:10. 1007/s11192-012-0659-z, 2012) that male scientists are more prolific and cited more often than female scientists. We explain in our present study one of the possible causes for obtaining this result with reference to Abramo et al. (Scientometrics 84(3): 821-833, 2009), who found in the small subgroups of star scientists a higher performance of male star scientists with respect to female star scientists; but in the remaining complementary subpopulations the performance gap between the two sexes is marginal. In agreement with Abramo et al. (2009), in our small subgroup of star scientists a higher performance of male star scientists with respect to female star scientists could be found. Contrasting, in the large complementary subgroup even a slightly higher performance of female scientists with respect to male scientists was identified. The last is even stronger expressed in favor of women than Abramo's result that the performance gap between the two sexes is truly marginal. In addition to Abramo et al. (2009), we already found in our previous study, special indexes characterizing the quality of papers (but not quantity) are not substantially different among sexes compared. © 2012 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Career Levels and Their Effect on Scholarly Output and Impact of Women Scientists Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Halevi, G.
    ;
    Bar-Ilan, J.
    In this article we examined the scholarly output and impact of 81 women scientist at the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Mount Sinai. The group was divided into three career level sub-groups based on the first year of publication of each scientist. We examined the number of publications, citations, readership and social media attention per each group. Our findings show that although senior faculty have more publications and overall citations, junior faculty receive more citations and more readership per paper. We also found that different career level faculty members receive different social media mentions. Mid-career faculty see more tweets that mention their research while senior faculty get more likes, shares and clicks via Facebook. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
  • 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,
    Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sebo, P.
    ;
    de Lucia, S.
    ;
    Vernaz, N.
    Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians. © 2020, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in highest quality medical research: A scientometric analysis of the representation of female authors in highest impact medical journals Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Bendels, M.H.K.
    ;
    Wanke, E.M.
    ;
    Benik, S.
    ;
    Schehadat, M.S.
    ;
    Schöffel, N.
    Objective The study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-impact medical research, analyzing the representation of female authorships from January, 2008 to September, 2017. Methods 133893 male and female authorships from seven high-impact medical journals were analyzed. The key methodology was the combined analysis of the relative frequency, odds ratio and citations of female authorships. The Prestige Index measures the distribution of prestigious authorships between the two genders. Results 35.0% of all authorships and 34.3% of the first, 36.1% of the co- and 24.2% of the last authorships were held by women. Female authors have an odds ratio of 0.97 (KI: 0.93-1.01) for first, 1.36 (KI: 1.32-1.40) for co- und 0.57 (KI: 0.54-0.60) for last authorships compared to male authors. The proportion of female authorships exhibits an annual growth of 1.3% overall, with 0.5% for first, 1.2% for co-, and 0.8% for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorship compared to men (Prestige Index=-0.38). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multi-author articles with male key authors are more frequently cited than articles with female key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.6% female authors are responsible for 35.0% of the authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 1 article per author. Distinct differences at the country level were revealed. Conclusion High impact medical research is characterized by few female group leaders as last authors and many female researchers being first or co-authors early in their career. It is very likely that this gender-specific career dichotomy will persistent in the next decade. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Stuttgart.New York.