PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Hepatology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in gastroenterology and hepatology conferences: The journey towards equality Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-06-27)
    Devi, Jalpa
    ;
    Butt, Amna Subhan
    ;
    Rai, Lajpat
    ;
    Kumar, Jatin
    ;
    Memon, Sadik
    Background: This study scrutinizes gender representation in invited faculty and conference committee leadership at key gastroenterology and hepatology conferences in Pakistan over five years, exploring the impact of the "glass ceiling" and "sticky floor" phenomena on gender diversity within academic medicine. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between January and March of 2023. The three major national societies of gastroenterology and hepatology in Pakistan that had been established for more than 10 years and the scientific programs of their annual conferences, which were publicly accessible, were included and coded as Society 1, Society 2 and Society 3 to maintain anonymity. The scientific programs for the last five years (2018-2022) were retrieved. The roles of invited faculties were identified as invited speakers, moderators, chairs/panelists, presidents and chairs of organizing or scientific committees and the gender makeup of the faculty was compared. Regression analysis was used to evaluate the trends for female representation over time for each role. Results: Significant gender disparity was evident by an extremely lower cumulative proportion of female invited faculty compared to males (211 [11.9%] vs. 1567 [88.1%], p 0.001). The predominance of invited male faculty was observed across all societies as well as in various roles of invited faculty (p 0.01). A significant disparity has also been observed in leadership positions of all three societies (43 [95.5%] males vs. 2 [4.5%] females, p 0.001), while the trend of women's underrepresentation across all societies remained almost unchanged over time (slope = 0.08, R2 = - 0.078, p-value = 0.875). Conclusion: Our study unveils striking gender disparities in women's representation as invited speakers and other roles at the annual scientific conferences of major gastroenterology and hepatology. Additionally, male dominance remains entrenched, notably in leadership positions, necessitating a proactive, multifaceted approach to rectify gender inequities.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in gastroenterology and hepatology authorship and editorial boards Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Leung, Kristel K.
    ;
    Jawaid, Noor
    ;
    Bollegala, Natasha
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women are numerically under-represented in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. This study aims to characterize the gender distribution of first and senior authors and editorial board members across high impact factor journals in gastroenterology and hepatology. METHODS: Publications from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were reviewed from 29 journals. Gender of editorial board leadership, editorial board members, first, and senior authors was identified using publicly available data. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess for a relationship among editorial board, first author, and senior author gender and impact factor. RESULTS: Of 29 journals (median impact factor 5.55) with 357 journal issues and 8036 articles, there were 3 of 39 female chief editors (7.7%), 601 of 3455 female editorial board members (17.4%), 2547 of 8036 female first authors (31.7%), and 1390 of 7335 female senior authors (19%). No statistically significant correlations existed between impact factor and chief editor gender with gender distribution of editorial boards, first authors, or senior authors. Positive correlations existed between male-dominated editorial boards and male first (+.52, P = .005) and senior authorship (+.56, P = .002), whereas negative correlations occurred between male-dominated editorial boards and female first (-.51, P = .006) and senior authorship (-.56, P = .002). Positive correlations also existed between publication of first and senior authors of the same gender (+.57, men [P = .001]; +.58, women [P = .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Although gender distribution of female first authorship approaches current distributions in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, editor-in-chief positions, editorial board membership, and senior authorship continue to be primarily men. Future endeavors to improve proportionate gender representation include improved journal leadership selection transparency, targeted diversity statements, and enhanced mentorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Thelwall, M.
    There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Equal Opportunity: Women Representation on Editorial Boards and Authorship of Editorials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Subramaniam, M.
    ;
    Azad, N.
    ;
    Wasan, S.K.
    ;
    Long, M.T.
    INTRODUCTION: The proportion of women editorial board members and authors of editorials in major gastroenterology journals is not known. METHODS: We determined the sex of editorial board members (n = 2,282) and authors of editorials (n = 1,705) across 6 journals from 1985 to 2020 at 5-year intervals. RESULTS: The proportion of women editorial board members increased from 2.9% in 1985 to 19.8% in 2020 (P < 0.0001) and women authors of editorials increased from 0% in 1985 to 22.2% in 2020 (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The proportion of women represented over time has improved, but opportunities likely exist to improve further. Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Polanco, Nathalie A. Pena
    ;
    McNally, Bridgette B.
    ;
    Levy, Cynthia
    ;
    Carey, Elizabeth J.
    ;
    Palomique, Juvelyn
    BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that gender differences in academic medicine exist. Men frequently have better measures of performance such as number of publications, number of citations, remuneration, and funding. AIMS: To evaluate whether a gender disparity in authorship exists. METHODS: We recorded the gender of first and senior authors of original papers, editorials/reviews from liver-related manuscripts in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Transplantation, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Liver Transplantation from January 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Of 2424 articles reviewed, we excluded 232 (10%) due to inability to determine gender. Among papers analyzed, 72.0% were original and 28.1% reviews/editorials with 65.1% of first authors being male and 34.9% female. Only 20.3% of papers with multiple authors had a female senior author. The proportion of male first and senior authorship between original papers and reviews/editorials was comparable. 72% of original papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 28% females. 71% of review/editorial papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 29% females. When the senior author of an original paper was female, 47.1% of first authors were male and 52.9% female. When the senior author was male, 67.1% of first authors were male and 32.9% female (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant gender difference exists in Hepatology publications. Female authorship mirrors the percentage of female AASLD membership; however, female senior authorship remains disproportionate. In general, funding for male authors is greater. Fewer women are first authors when the senior author is male, highlighting the importance of female mentorship in Hepatology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Analysis of Authorship in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery: Women Remain Underrepresented Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Farooq, Ayesha
    ;
    Sahara, Kota
    ;
    Muneeb, Aeman
    ;
    Farooq, Khadija
    ;
    Tsilimigras, Diamantis I.
    INTRODUCTION: Given the need to increase female representation in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, as well as the need to increase the academic pipeline of women in this subspecialty, we sought to characterize the prevalence of female authorship in the HPB literature. In particular, the objective of the current study was to determine the proportion of women who published HPB research articles as first, second, or last author over the last decade. METHODS: All articles pertaining to hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery appearing in seven surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, HPB (Oxford), Surgery, and Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery) were reviewed for the years 2008 and 2018. Information on sex of author, country of author's institution, and article type was collected and entered into a computerized database. RESULTS: Among the 1473 index articles included in the final analytic cohort, 414 (28%) publications had a woman as the first or last author, while the vast majority (n = 1,059, 72%) had a man as the first or last author. The number of female first authors increased from 15.6% (n = 92/591) in 2008 to 25.7% (n = 227/882) in 2018 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the proportion of second (n = 123/536, 23.0% vs n = 214/869, 24.6%, p = 0.47) or last (n = 44/564, 7.8% vs n = 88/875, 10.1%, p = 0.15) authors. Women were more likely to publish papers appearing in medium-impact journals (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.88) and articles with a female author were more likely to be from a North American institution (referent: North America, Asia OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59 vs Europe OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87). CONCLUSION: Women first/last authors in HPB research articles have increased over the past 10 years from 22 to 32%. Women as last authors remain low, however, as only 1 in 10 papers had a senior woman author. These data should prompt HPB leaders to find solutions to the gap in female authorship including mentorship of young female researchers and surgeons.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally Open PDF 
    (eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2019)
    Broderick, Nichole A
    ;
    Casadevall, Arturo
    ;
    Rodgers, Peter A
    We analyzed 2898 scientific papers published between 1995 and 2017 in which two or more authors shared the first author position. For papers in which the first and second authors made equal contributions, mixed-gender combinations were most frequent, followed by male-male and then female-female author combinations. For mixed-gender combinations, more male authors were in the first position, although the disparity decreased over time. For papers in which three or more authors made equal contributions, there were more male authors than female authors in the first position and more all-male than all-female author combinations. The gender inequalities observed among authors who made equal contributions are not consistent with random or alphabetical ordering of authors. These results raise concerns about female authors not receiving proper credit for publications and suggest a need for journals to request clarity on the method used to decide author order among those who contributed equally.