PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 12

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.
Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study Open PDF
(2020)
Mamtani, Mira
;
Shofer, Frances
;
Mudan, Anita
;
Khatri, Utsha
;
Walker, Rachael
BACKGROUND: Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author. RESULTS: Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research Open PDF
(2021)
Lydon, Sinéad
;
Madden, Caoimhe
;
De Bhulbh, Áine
;
Maher, Senan
;
Byrne, Dara
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.
Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Li, Ben
;
Jacob-Brassard, Jean
;
Dossa, Fahima
;
Salata, Konrad
;
Kishibe, Teruko
OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.
The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? Open PDF
(2018)
Holman, Luke
;
Stuart-Fox, Devi
;
Hauser, Cindy E.
Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.
A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields Open PDF
(2020)
Thelwall, M.
;
Mas-Bleda, A.
Current attempts to address the shortfall of female researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have not yet succeeded, despite other academic subjects having female majorities. This article investigates the extent to which gender disparities are subject-wide or nation-specific by a first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018. The results show overall and geocultural patterns as well as individual national differences. Almost half of the subjects were always more male (seven; e.g., Mathematics) or always more female (six; e.g., Immunology & Microbiology) than the national average. A strong overall trend (Spearman correlation 0.546) is for countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored research to also have larger differences in gender disparities between fields (correlation 0.314 for gender ratios). This confirms the international gender equality paradox previously found for degree subject choices: Increased gender equality overall associates with moderately greater gender differentiation between subjects. This is consistent with previous United States-based claims that gender differences in academic careers are partly due to (socially constrained) gender differences in personal preferences. Radical solutions may therefore be needed for some STEM subjects to overcome gender disparities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Amalia Mas-Bleda. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019 Open PDF
(2022)
Rivadeneira, F.
;
Loder, R.T.
;
McGuire, A.C.
;
Chitwood, J.R.
;
Duffy, K.
The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®), the flagship journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), enjoys a premiere position in its field and has a global reach. The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process whereby three editors are typically involved in assessing each submission for publication, in addition to external reviewers. Although emphasizing fairness, rigor, and transparency, this process is not immune to the influence of unconscious biases. The gender and geographic diversity of JBMR® authors, editors, and reviewers has increased over the last three decades, but whether such diversity has affected peer-review outcomes is unknown. We analyzed manuscript acceptance rates based on the gender and geographic origin of authors, reviewers, and Associate Editors. The analysis included 1662 original research articles submitted to JBMR® from September 2017 through December 2019. Gender was assigned using probabilities from an online tool and manually validated through internet searches. Predictor variables of manuscript outcome were determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The acceptance rate was highest when the first and last authors were of different genders, and lowest when both authors were men. Reviewer gender did not influence the outcome regardless of the genders of the first and last authors. Associate Editors from all geographical regions tended to select reviewers from their same region. The acceptance rate was highest when the Associate Editor was from Europe. Manuscripts with authors from North America and Australia/New Zealand had greater overall odds of acceptance than those from Europe and Asia. Manuscripts reviewed only by Editorial Board (EB) members had a lower acceptance rate than those refereed by non-EB reviewers or a mix of EB and non-EB reviewers. Overall, the geographical origin of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as reviewers' EB membership may influence manuscript decisions. Yet, the JBMR® peer-review process remains largely free from gender bias. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Who acknowledges who? A gender analysis
(2019)
Paul-Hus, A.
;
Mongeon, P.
;
Sainte-Marie, M.
;
Larivière, V.
Acknowledgements found in scholarly papers allow for credit attribution among non-authors—from individuals to organizations—that contributed to a piece of research. As such, they are associated with a different kind of recognition than authorship. While several studies have shown that social factors affect authorship and citation practices, few analyses have been performed on acknowledgements. Based on 878,250 acknowledgees mentioned in 291,167 papers published in 2015 retrieved from Web of Science, the objective of this work-in-progress is to better understand such credit attribution practices and how gender may influence them. Our results show that gender disparities generally found in authorship can be extended to acknowledgements, and that women are even more underrepresented in the acknowledgement than in the authors’ list of a paper. Our findings also confirm that women acknowledge proportionally more women. These results suggest that gender plays a role in the entire spectrum of credit attribution practices, from authorships to acknowledgements.
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.
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.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results