PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Gap

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Meyer, A.
    ;
    Streichert, T.
    Background: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. Methods: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. Results: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. Conclusions: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively. © 2024 JMIR Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • 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,
    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,
    Gender gap in research: A bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sebo, P.
    ;
    Maisonneuve, H.
    ;
    Fournier, J.P.
    Background: Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics. Methods: This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: Author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations. Results: The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]). Conclusions: The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed. © The Author(s) 2020.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences graduates Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Frandsen, T.F.
    ;
    Jacobsen, R.H.
    ;
    Wallin, J.A.
    ;
    Brixen, K.
    ;
    Ousager, J.
    The aim of this study is to compare PhD students' performance with respect to gender using a number of matching methods. The data consists of fine-grained information about PhD-students at the Institute of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark. Men and women are matched controlling for sub-disciplinary affiliation, education, year of enrolment and age. Publications and citations are identified in Web of Science.Our study shows that the average total number of publication is slightly higher for men than for women. Excluding the "other" group of publications from the analyses reveals that there is a negligible difference between men and women in terms of published articles. A substantial proportion of women is on maternity leave during the time period analysed and thus we would expect their productivity to be considerably lower. Similarly, we have found very little difference between the citation impact of men and women.We find matching methods to be a promising set of methods for evaluating productivity and impact of individuals from various sub-fields, universities and time periods as we are able to discard some of the underlying factors determining the results of analyses of gender differences in productivity and citation impact. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Frandsen, T.F.
    ;
    Jacobsen, R.H.
    ;
    Ousager, J.
    The existence of gender disparities in academia is well documented. Many explanations have been proposed and productivity is one of the most used variables to explain a possible correlation between gender and differences in academic rank or leadership positions. The literature on the existence of a productivity gender gap is inconclusive which may due to the variety of study designs. This article presents the results of a longitudinal bibliometric study of health science researchers controlling for sub-disciplinary affiliation, education, year of enrollment and age. The productivity and impact of the researchers are analyzed during a 16-year period. We find no or little difference in productivity or impact among the group of health sciences researchers from the time of enrollment in the Ph.D. program and 10 years beyond, and women outperform men in some cases. There are negligible differences in productivity and impact prior to enrollment. The implications of the findings are discussed. © 2020, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • 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).