PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OphthalmologySubject: search.filters.subject.Citations

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender distribution in publishing in five leading optometry journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Cardona, G.
    ;
    Herrera, A.
    Purpose: To explore gender distribution in authorship and citation parameters of articles published in five optometry journals included in the Ophthalmology category of Journal Citation Reports. Methods: The Scopus database was used to retrieve all citable articles published in 2011 and 2021 in Optometry and Vision Science, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Clinical Experimental Optometry, Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, and Eye and Contact Lens. Gender of the first, last and single authors of all articles, and citation parameters of articles published in 2011 up to May 2023 were determined. Gender of the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board of these journals was investigated (May 2023). Results: Only one journal had a female editor-in-chief and three journals had more males than females in their editorial board. In 2011 and 2021, respectively, 40.1% and 48.0% of articles had female as the first authors ((Formula presented.) = 5.77; p = 0.02), and 32.7% and 39.6% had female as the last authors ((Formula presented.) = 4.61; p = 0.03). Gender parity was observed in one journal for the first author and none for the last author in 2011, and in three journals for the first author and one for the last author in 2021. Regarding combinations of male (M) and female (F) first and last authorship positions, the authors of articles in 2011 were MM (44.5%), FM (22.8%), FF (17.3%) and MF (15.4%), and MM (34.6%), FM (25.8%), FF (22.1%) and MF (17.5%) in 2021. Differences between 2011 and 2021 were statistically significant ((Formula presented.) = 9.80; p = 0.02). The proportion of authorship combinations did not show statistically significant differences among journals in 2011 or in 2021. Neither citation nor self-citation were influenced by gender. Conclusions: Gender disparities persist in optometry journals, with females being under-represented in senior and leadership positions. Increasing the awareness of gender disparity in authorship is a necessary step towards ensuring fairness in science in general, and optometry in particular. © 2024 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Extent of Gender Gap in Citations in Ophthalmology Literature Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Cao, Suqi
    ;
    Xiong, Yue
    ;
    Zhang, Wenhua
    ;
    Zhou, Jiawei
    ;
    He, Zhifen
    PURPOSE: To investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper's gender category was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as -9.3, -1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year. CONCLUSION: The high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.