PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9

Academic Surgical Oncologists’ Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation Open PDF
(2018)
Nguyen, V.
;
Marmor, R.A.
;
Ramamoorthy, S.L.
;
Blair, S.L.
;
Clary, B.M.
Background: A scholar’s h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. Results: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). Conclusions: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers. © 2018, Society of Surgical Oncology.
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.
Gender Disparities in Presentations at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Meetings From 2014 to 2019 Open PDF
(2022)
Lyu, Heather G.
;
Lu, Pamela
;
Mahvi, David A.
;
Kuo, Lindsay E. Y.
;
Wong, Sandra L.
BACKGROUND: Participation in surgical society meetings serves as a proxy for academic success and is important for career development. This study aimed to investigate and report the gender breakdown of presenters at recent Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meetings. METHODS: Genders of presenters for poster, parallel, plenary, and video sessions at SSO meetings from 2014 through 2019 were collected. These data were broken down to first-last authorship relationships including female-female, female-male, male-female, and male-male. The proportions of female-to-male presenters were compared for each session type. Statistical significance was set at p value lower than 0.05. RESULTS: From 2014 through 2019, the SSO had 2920 presenters, and 47% were female. Women were listed as first authors more often for the poster session (48%) than for other sessions (parallel, plenary, and video) (p = 0.003). Women also were listed more often as senior authors for the poster session (31%) than for other sessions (p = 0.004). Female senior authors were fewer than male senior authors across all session types. Female first authors had the highest representation in breast (75%), endocrine (48%), and cutaneous (46%) specialties (p < 0.001). The most common combination of first and senior authors was male-male (43%), followed by female-male (28%), female-female (19%), and male-female (10%). CONCLUSION: Overall, female presentation at SSO is comparable with society demographics, and female first authorship is relatively equal to male first authorship in poster sessions. Whereas female first authorship improved over time, female senior authorship remained relatively flat. Opportunities to improve gender equality in senior authorship positions should be explored.
Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: A retrospective bibliometric study Open PDF
(2021)
Lee, S.F.
;
Redondo Sánchez, D.
;
Sánchez, M.
;
Gelaye, B.
;
Chiang, C.L.
Objective We evaluated the temporal trend in gender ratios of first and last authors in the field of oncological research published in major general medical and oncology journals and examined the gender pattern in coauthorship. Design We conducted a retrospective study in PubMed using the R package RISmed. We retrieved original research articles published in four general medical journals and six oncology specialty journals. These journals were selected based on their impact factors and popularity among oncologists. We identified the names of first and last authors from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2019. The gender of the authors was identified and validated using the Gender API database (https://gender-api.com/). Primary and secondary outcome measures The percentages of first and last authors by gender and the gender ratios (male to female) and temporal trends in gender ratios of first and last authors were determined. Results We identified 34 624 research articles, in which 32 452 had the gender of both first and last authors identified. Among these 11 650 (33.6%) had women as the first author and 7908 (22.8%) as the last author, respectively. The proportion of female first and last authors increased from 26.6% and 16.2% in 2002, to 32.9% and 27.5% in 2019, respectively. However, the gender ratio (male to female) of first and last authors decreased by 1.5% and 2.6% per year, respectively, which were statistically significant (first author: Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00; last author: IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). Male first and last authorship was the most common combination. Male-female and female-female pairs increased by 2.0% and 5.0%, respectively (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 and IRR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06, respectively). Conclusions The continued under-representation of women means that more efforts to address parity for advancement of women in academic oncology are needed. © 2021 Author(s). Published by BMJ.
Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF
(2019)
Hsiehchen, D.
;
Hsieh, A.
;
Espinoza, M.
IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Ha, Giang L.
;
Lehrer, Eric J.
;
Wang, Ming
;
Holliday, Emma
;
Jagsi, Reshma
Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
Women's Authorship of Reviews in Ophthalmic Journals over Time Open PDF
(2021)
Gertig, D.
;
Keane, M.C.
;
Matthews, J.M.
;
Williams, K.A.
;
Smith, J.R.
Purpose:To investigate prevalence and trends in women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals over 2 decades.Design:Literature survey.Methods:Total number of authors, and number and gender of first and senior (last-named) authors, were identified in all full reviews published in Prog Retin Eye Res, Surv Ophthalmol, and Curr Opin Ophthalmol for the calendar years 1999, 2009, and 2019. The gender of authors was assigned manually by multiple methods. The subspecialty area of each review was captured by keyword and text search. Country of origin was determined from attributions of first and senior authors.Results:The gender of 841 first and senior authors was assigned unequivocally for 471 articles (96%). The frequency of women's authorship rose significantly over time (1999, 2009, 2019) for both first authors (19%, 32%, 44%; P < 0.001) and senior authors (16%, 19%, 29%; P = 0.018). The number of single-author reviews decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001), as did the proportion of reviews with neither a first nor a senior woman author (P < 0.001). Women's first authorship increased over time for reviews on glaucoma (P < 0.001), while women's senior authorship increased for anterior segment/cataract (P = 0.036). The proportion of reviews with a woman first or senior author did not differ by country of origin (P = 0.887 and P = 0.520, respectively).Conclusions:Women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals increased significantly over the 20-year period, but a gender disparity remained: in 2019, more than 55% of first authors, and more than 70% of senior authors, were men. © 2021 Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.
Recent Trends in “Manels” and Gender Representation Among Panelists at North American Annual Radiation Oncology Meetings Open PDF
(2024)
Burgess, Laura
;
Ghosh, Anushka
;
Yeap, Beow Y.
;
Rasheed, Nabeel
;
Ragala, Siri
Purpose Achieving gender equity in radiation oncology is an important goal, as a smaller proportion of women enter radiation oncology residency compared with those graduating from medical school. As invited speaking opportunities at academic medical conferences are vital for promotion/tenure, we investigated the prevalence of all-men panels (“manels”) at American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and Canadian Society of Radiation Oncology (CARO) annual meetings. Methods and Materials Using ASTRO and CARO online meeting programs, 2018 to 2021 faculty information was obtained, including gender, panel role (chair vs nonchair), type of session, and topic. Primary outcomes included percentage of manels and proportion of female panelists over time. Representation of women among chairs was also evaluated. Results Over the 4-year study period across both conferences, a total of 765 panel sessions were held with 2973 faculty members, of whom 1287 (43.3%) were women. Of these sessions, 127 of 765 (16.6%) were manels. ASTRO meetings had 1169 of 2742 (42.6%) female faculty members and held 107 of 680 (15.7%) manels, whereas CARO meetings had 118 of 231 (51.1%) female faculty and held 20 of 85 manels (23.5%). From 2018 to 2021, the proportion of manels decreased at ASTRO and CARO meetings from 25.6% to 8.2% (P < .001) and from 29.6% to 15.0% (P = .130), respectively. The role of chair was majority male in every year from 2018 to 2021 at ASTRO meetings (58.6% overall), but more balanced at CARO meetings (48.0% overall). Among session types, the highest proportion of manels was observed for scientific sessions (19.1%, P = .011) at ASTRO meetings and leadership sessions (29.4%, P = .533) at CARO meetings. The lowest proportion of female panelists was on genitourinary cancer topics at ASTRO meetings (31.9%, P = .018) and physics topics at CARO meetings (40.4%, P = .085). Conclusions During the study period, the proportion of female panelists increased with a corresponding decrease in manels. ASTRO and CARO should strive for further involvement of women and the elimination of manels whenever possible.
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.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results