PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OncologySubject: search.filters.subject.Gender

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Health policy, 2018)
    Zhou, Charlie D.
    ;
    Head, Michael G.
    ;
    Marshall, Dominic C.
    ;
    Gilbert, Barnabas J.
    ;
    El-Harasis, Majd A.
    Objectives To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data. Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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).
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in multiple myeloma publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Dweik, Aala
    ;
    Dweik, Hadeel
    ;
    Mian, Hira
    ;
    Mohan, Meera
    ;
    Schinke, Carolina
    Gender disparities exist in academia and are disproportionately affecting females. We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze gender disparities in multiple myeloma (MM) publications. A total of 679 publications with 8898 authorships were analyzed. The mean number of authors for females vs. males, per publication, was 4.4 and 8.7, respectively. Females constituted a third of the total authors. Female first authors, corresponding authors, and last/senior authors were 34%, 21%, and 18%, respectively. Note that, 17% of authors of clinical trial publications were females. Gender disparities in MM publications exist and are more obvious in the last/corresponding authorship. Efforts should be made to identify factors that contribute to these disparities and work to resolve them.