PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Health SciencesViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool: exposing gender bias and gender inequities in health research Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2017)
    Morgan, T.
    ;
    Williams, L.A.
    ;
    Gott, M.
    Quality appraisal tools used in systematic reviews to evaluate health literature do not adequately address issues related to gender. This oversight is significant because disparities between genders have been identified as a major health equity concern, and systematic reviews are regarded as a powerful means for informing policy that could redress gender inequities. In this paper, we present our Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool that offers researchers a template to undertake a comprehensive gendered analysis of studies they review. Informed by a feminist perspective, the tool addresses issues of power, gender and inequity, thereby giving researchers the means to interrogate the scientific rigour of systematic reviews that focus on gender. Specifically, our tool outlines ways gender can be critically examined in terms of study design, data collection, analysis, discussion and recommendations. We argue that this tool has the potential to improve the provision of public health by providing solid understandings and critical reflections on the reasons why women continue to face barriers in their access to optimal health care. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Madden, Caoimhe
    ;
    O'Malley, Róisín
    ;
    O'Connor, Paul
    ;
    O'Dowd, Emily
    ;
    Byrne, Dara
    CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ruggieri, R.
    ;
    Pecoraro, F.
    ;
    Luzi, D.
    Gender equality and Open Access (OA) are priorities within the European Research Area and cross-cutting issues in European research program H2020. Gender and openness are also key elements of responsible research and innovation. However, despite the common underlying targets of fostering an inclusive, transparent and sustainable research environment, both issues are analysed as independent topics. This paper represents a first exploration of the inter-linkages between gender and OA analysing the scientific production of researchers of the Italian National Research Council under a gender perspective integrated with the different OA publications modes. A bibliometric analysis was carried out for articles published in the period 2016–2018 and retrieved from the Web of Science. Results are presented constantly analysing CNR scientific production in relation to gender, disciplinary fields and OA publication modes. These variables are also used when analysing articles that receive financial support. Our results indicate that gender disparities in scientific production still persist particularly in STEM disciplines, while the gender gap is the closest to parity in medical and agricultural sciences. A positive dynamic toward OA publishing and women’s scientific production is shown when disciplines with well-established open practices are related to articles supported by funds. A slightly higher women’s propensity toward OA is shown when considering Gold OA, or authorships with women in the first and last article by-line position. The prevalence of Italian funded articles with women’s contributions published in Gold OA journals seems to confirm this tendency, especially if considering the weak enforcement of the Italian OA policies. © 2021, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Woman authorship in pre-print versus peerreviewed oral health-related publications: A two-year observational study Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Rajendran, L.
    ;
    Khandelwal, N.
    ;
    Feine, J.
    ;
    Ioannidou, E.
    Objectives Women in oral health science face similar societal issues and challenges as those in other STEMM careers, and gender disparities continue to exist as evidenced by fewer women represented as first and last authors in scientific publications. Pre-prints may serve as a conduit to immediately disseminating one's work, bypassing the arduous peer review process and its associated inherent biases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to 1] compare the gender of first and last authors in pre-print versus peer reviewed publications, 2] examine the composition of first and last author pairs as stratified by publication type, and 3] examine the correlation between woman authorship and institutional geographic location and publication metrics stratified by publication type. Methods The keyword "oral health"was used to search for publications in BioRxiv and Pubmed in the years 2018 and 2019. Gender of first and last authors were determined, and its frequency was considered as the primary outcome. Additionally, the geographic location of the author's associated institution and publication metrics measured by Altmetrics score were extracted. Data was descriptively summarized by frequencies and percentages. Chi-square analysis was conducted for categorical variables which included the relationship between gender and publication type as well as gender and region of author's associated institution. Binomial regression analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between gender and Altmetrics. Results Woman first authors comprised 40.3% of pre-prints and 64.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. Woman last authors comprised 31.3% of pre-prints and 61.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. When analyzing the relationships between first and last author, the Man-Man pairing represented 47.7% of the pre-print publications and the Woman-Woman pairing comprised a majority of the of the peer review publications at 47.5%. All results were statistically significant with a p-value <0.05. No significant correlation was found between region of institution or Altmetrics and gender of first or last authors [p>0.05]. Conclusion For the first time in oral health science, it was found that women show higher representation as first and last author positions in peer reviewed publications versus pre-prints. © 2021 Rajendran et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? Open PDF 
    (1994)
    Gilbert, Julie R.
    ;
    Williams, Elaine S.
    ;
    Lundberg, George D.
    Objective.—To assess whether manuscripts received by JAMA in 1991 possessed differing peer review and manuscript processing characteristics, or had a variable chance of acceptance, associated with the gender of the participants in the peer review process.Design.—Retrospective cohort study of 1851 research articles.Setting.—JAMA editorial office.Participants.—Eight male and five female JAMA editors, 2452 male and 930 female reviewers, and 1698 male and 462 female authors.Main Outcome Measure.—Statistically significant gender bias.Results.—Female editors were assigned manuscripts from female corresponding authors more often than were male editors (P&lt;.001). Female editors used more reviewers per manuscript if sent for other review. Male reviewers assisted male editors more often than female editors, and male reviewers took longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts (median, 25 vs 22 days). Content reviewer recommendations were independent of corresponding author and review gender, while male statistical reviewers recommended the highest and lowest categories more frequently than did female statistical reviewers (P&lt;.001). Manuscripts handled by female editors were rejected summarily at higher rates (P&lt;.001). Articles submitted to JAMA in 1991 were not accepted at significantly different rates based on the gender of the corresponding author or the assigned editor (P&gt;.4).Conclusions.—Gender differences exist in editor and reviewer characteristics at JAMA with no apparent effect on the final outcome of the peer review process or acceptance for publication.(JAMA. 1994;272:139-142)
  • 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.
  • 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).