PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Immunology & PathologyGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women faculty achieve promotion to full professor equivalent to men faculty in a subset of US academic pathology departments Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-07)
    Leonard, Debra G.B.
    ;
    Limson, Melvin
    ;
    Fitzhugh, Valerie A.
    ;
    Barclift, Deniz Peker
    ;
    Ryan, Eileen A.
    Women faculty in academic medicine remain underrepresented at higher faculty ranks despite equal numbers of men and women medical students since 2003. This 2022 study asked if US academic pathology departments had achieved equity across academic rank for women faculty. The survey of 135 member departments of the Association for Academic Pathology requested data regarding chair characteristics, other department leaders' number and gender, and faculty number and gender by academic rank and track. Sixty-four (47%) member departments responded. Twenty-three of the responding departments (36%) had equity of women and men full professors, defined as <5% difference women and men full professors as a percentage of total faculty. Departments with professor gender equity more often had a woman chair (P < 0.01), and a higher percentage of women faculty (P < 0.05), women on the research tenure track (P < 0.01), and tenured women faculty (P < 0.01). Unstructured interviews with a subset of department chairs did not identify significant differences between departments with and without professor gender equity, except that equity was more driven by the intention of the chair (P < 0.01) and less by dean or institutional influence (P < 0.01). Over one third of US academic pathology departments responding to the survey have achieved equity for women and men full professors in current academic medicine institutions. This equity success for women is lost when looking at data by specialty or nationally, rather than by department.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mathur, Ambika
    ;
    Cano, Annmarie
    ;
    Kohl, Michael
    ;
    Muthunayake, Nisansala S.
    ;
    Vaidyanathan, Prassanna
    It has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship and citation gender trends in immunology and microbiology Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.A.
    Immunology and microbiology research are essential for human and animal health. Unlike many other health fields, they do not usually centre around the curing or helping individual patients but focus on the microscopic scale instead. These fields are interesting from a gender perspective because two theories seeking to explain gender differences in career choices in the USA (people/things and communal/agentic goals) might produce conflicting expectations about their gender balances. This article assesses the gender shares of journal articles and gendered citation rates of five subfields of the Scopus Immunology and Microbiology broad category 1996-2014/18, for research with solely US author affiliations. Only Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (38% female) had not reached gender parity in publishing by 2018. There was a female first author citation advantage in Parasitology but a disadvantage in Immunology. Immunology, Parasitology and Virology, had female last author citation disadvantages, but all gender effects were much smaller (<5%) than that of an extra author (10%-56%). Citation differences cannot therefore account for the current underrepresentation of women in senior roles. © 2020 FEMS.
  • 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.