PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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 differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Yamamura, J.
    ;
    Molwitz, I.
    ;
    Ozga, A.-K.
    ;
    Nguyen, T.-A.
    ;
    Wedekind, I.
    Background: Career prospects in academic medicine are strongly linked to scientific authorship and this marker has been widely used as an indicator of gender equity in academia. However, direct comparisons of medical disciplines regarding their proportion of female physicians (FP) in different countries are missing. This study examines the gender parity and gender cooperation using first authorships (FA) and senior authorships (SA) of scientific publications in five medical disciplines and six different OECD countries over a 10-year time-trend. Methods: Articles from three high-impact journals in each of the medical discipline radiology, urology, surgery, gynecology, and pediatrics from the years 2007/8 and 2017/18 were retrospectively reviewed. The gender and affiliation location of the FA and SA of original research articles and reviews were assigned and compared with the proportion of in each discipline for the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Mantel-Haenszel test and multinomial logistic regression models were used to calculate differences in proportions of women authors and FP and to assess trends and proportions of FA and SA. Results: 30,803 articles were evaluated. Equally, with rising proportions of FP in all disciplines, the number of women authors increased across years. The shares of women FAs were either significantly higher (urology/surgery/gynecology) or balanced (pediatrics/radiology) compared to the proportion of FP. In contrast, the shares of women SA were balanced only in disciplines with a low proportion of FP (urology and surgery) and otherwise reduced. Women same-gender cooperation was as common as men same-gender cooperation and preferred over a women-led mixed gender cooperation in disciplines where this seemed to be practicable due to the high proportions of FP. Conclusion: In contrast to FA, a significant disparity persists in SA, particularly in disciplines with a high proportion of FP. The discrepancy between FA and SA may reflect, among others, dropout from an academic career in early or mid-academic levels, for example, due to structural inequality; together with the findings on gender preference in authorship collaborations, this may inform future strategies for promoting equal career advancement for women physicians. © 2023, The Author(s).
  • 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.