PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.PsychiatrySubject: search.filters.subject.Academia

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of psychiatric research excellence: Analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2 % scholars worldwide (2017–2023) Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-02)
    Riad, Abanoub
    ;
    Alkasaby, Muhammad
    ;
    Changchroenkul, Nisarat
    ;
    Koščík, Michal
    Background Research excellence is increasingly used as a benchmark for academic evaluation in medical sciences, including psychiatry. However, bibliometric analyses often prioritize productivity over quality. This study examined national, institutional, and individual determinants of psychiatric research excellence using a multi-level ecological framework. Methods We analyzed the Stanford–Elsevier Lists of the top 2 % scholars (2017–2023), incorporating 51 independent variables. These included: (a) national determinants grouped into five domains (mental healthcare, gender equity, socioeconomic development, budgetary policies, and disease burden), (b) institutional factors derived from global and discipline-specific rankings, and (c) individual factors of gender and academic age. The primary outcome was the number of excellent psychiatric scholars (EPS), with secondary indicators including citation counts, modified H-index, composite score, and self-citation share. Results Psychiatric research excellence was concentrated in high-income, English-speaking countries, with significant institutional elitism. A small number of institutions hosted a disproportionate share of EPS. Gender disparities persisted, with female representation negatively associated with national gender gaps in employment and education, but positively linked to government spending on education. Academic age positively correlated with citation-based performance metrics. Multivariable models confirmed the explanatory roles of gender, academic age, official language, gender equity, and human development. Conclusion Psychiatric research excellence reflects systemic advantages related to income, language, institutional prestige, and gender equity. Equitable funding, support for emerging research environments, and expanded international collaboration are essential to fostering broader participation in high-impact psychiatric research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in female authorship in two major psychiatry journals in India Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Menon, V.
    ;
    Varadharajan, N.
    ;
    Bascarane, S.
    ;
    Andrade, C.
    Women authors are under-represented in academic medicine and academic publishing. We examined the representation of women in key authorship positions in psychiatric journals in India as well as time trends in female authorship across a decade. All articles originating from India and published in two leading Indian psychiatry journals during 2019–2020 were examined and compared with articles published in these journals during 2009–2010. Important outcomes examined were representations of women as first author, corresponding author, and last author, and the number of women in authorship lists. A total of 817 articles was analyzed; of these, 251 (30.7%) were published during 2009–2010 and 566 (69.3%) during 2019–2020. Women first-authored just over a quarter of the articles (n = 218, 26.7%). Nearly half of the articles (n = 389, 47.6%) had no woman author. Representation of women in key authorship positions and in total authorship increased significantly across time. Notably, the proportion of women first authors significantly increased for original papers (24.5% in 2009–2010 vs 38.1% in 2019–2020, p = 0.011). Gender gap in academic psychiatry publishing in India has narrowed during the past decade but is still evident. There is a need to identify and address factors that could narrow the gender gap. © 2022 Elsevier B.V.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The workplace culture, mental health and wellbeing of early- and mid-career health academics: a cross-sectional analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Marck, Claudia H.
    ;
    Ayton, Darshini
    ;
    Steward, Trevor
    ;
    Koay, Hui-Fern
    ;
    Wiley, Joshua F.
    There are reports of poor working conditions for early and mid-career academics (EMCAs) in universities, however, empirical data using validated tools are scarce. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using validated tools to assess workplace satisfaction, exposure to workplace abuse, and mental health. Participants included employees of medical and health faculties of two of the largest Australian universities, surveyed between October 2020 and January 2021.Overall, 284 participants responded. Many reported job insecurity: half (50.7%) working on contracts with less than one remaining year. Workloads were considerable, with 89.5% of participants working overtime and 54.8% reporting burnout. Workplace abuse in the forms of bullying (46.6%), sexual harassment (25.3%), sexism (49.8%) and racism (22.5%) were commonly reported. Clinically significant symptoms of depression (28.0%), anxiety (21.7%) and suicidal ideation or self-harm (13.6%) were reported; with a higher prevalence among those working more overtime, and those exposed to workplace abuse. Priorities include providing a stable and safe workplace, increasing accountability and transparency in addressing workplace abuse, and supporting professional development.In summary, EMCAs in our study were commonly exposed to precarious employment conditions and workplace abuse. Our findings provide empirical evidence on where universities and funding bodies should direct resources and change organisational risk factors, to improve workplace culture.