PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.PsychologySubject: search.filters.subject.Bibliometrics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production of women psychologists in Peru Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Ventura-León, J.
    ;
    Mamani-Benito, O.
    ;
    Tocto-Muñoz, S.
    ;
    Curahua-Guillen, K.
    Gender inequality has not been oblivious to science, where the under-representation of women in the academic scope is a concern. This is a problem that requires in-depth study, especially in careers with high percentages of women such as psychology and regions such as Latin America where there is a considerable proportion of female scientific psychologists. Despite this scene, the feminine production is known to present an increase; however, it is still lower than the masculine one. This shows that women are under-represented in leadership positions, hiring and applying for grants, and financing of research projects in public health and epidemiology. Likewise, review studies on female production in psychology are scarce in Peru and Latin America. The objective of this research is to characterize the production of women researchers in psychology by type of research, area of application, leadership and subject matter. For such objectives, a total of 149 papers published by 14 women researchers recorded in Peru’s National Registry of Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (RENACYT) were analyzed. Four psychologists were excluded because they did not have their scientific production declared; in addition, repeated documents and those which did not correspond to scientific documents, such as congress summaries, papers in non-indexed journals and those excluded from any database were also excluded under the PRISMA’s recommendations. The results show a greater quantity of co-authorships (60.4 %), studies with empirical designs (79.2 %), of associative objective (36.2 %), correlational strategy (21.5 %) and a greater quantity of papers in the clinical and health subfield (38.9 %) and education (38.3 %). As for the subject matter, clinical disorders (23.5 %) and cognitive processes (16.8 %) appear with greater frequency. Regarding these findings, there is scientific information evidencing that empirical designs are the most usual form of research, while the theoretical ones are the opposite; at least in Latin American. Furthermore, a ranking of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century only includes two women: Mary Ainsworth and Anna Freud, ranked 98th and 100th respectively. As for the fact of finding that more than 50 % of researchers occupy the position of co-author, previous studies show similar percentages in the health field indicating an increase from 50.3 % to 55.6 % in co-authorship. Finally, there is little scientific literature about the frequent topics studied by psychologists; therefore, these results are unprecedented; however, a search in Scopus by keywords reveals that HIV is the most studied topic in Peru; a variable located in the clinical and health subfield. Likewise, another variable that appears in the search is depression, that can be included in the topic of clinical disorders. Despite these results, the study has the following limitations: firstly, feminine scientific production can be studied from diverse sources such as review of publications in a journal, presentations at a congress, production in Scopus, which can cause difficulties in contrasting results. Secondly, there are no studies on thematic analysis, which does not allow comparison with previous research and suggests taking the findings with caution because it has a more exploratory connotation, so it is recommended to continue with this type of study. In conclusion, research psychologists carry out empirical studies framed in the analysis of the relationship between variables with a lesser predominance of theoretical and manipulative, quasi-experimental or single case studies. To a greater extent, the research is clinical and based on health. The women appear as co-authors in a large percentage of studies where the most frequent subject is clinical disorder. © 2022, Interdisciplinaria. All Rights Reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Author gender differences in psychology citation impact 1996–2018 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    Academic psychology in the USA is a gender success story in terms of overturning its early male dominance but there are still relatively few senior female psychology researchers. To assess whether there are gender differences in citation impact that might help to explain either of these trends, this study investigates psychology articles since 1996. Seven out of eight Scopus psychology categories had a majority of female first-authored journal articles by 2018. From regression analyses of first and last author gender and team size, female first authors associate with a slightly higher average citation impact, but extra authors have a 10 times stronger association with higher average citation impact. Last author gender has little association with citation impact. Female first authors are more likely to be in larger teams and if team size is attributed to the first author's work, then their apparent influence of female first authors on citation impact doubles. While gender differences in average citation impact are too small to account for gender-related trends in academic psychology, they warn that male-dominated citation-based ranking lists of psychologists do not reflect the state of psychology research today. © 2019 International Union of Psychological Science
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Middle Authorship
    (2021)
    Fleischmann, A.
    ;
    Van Berkel, L.
    Women increasingly occupy jobs in psychological research, but continue to face career barriers. One such barrier is fewer authorship and publication opportunities, with women often having fewer first authorships than men. In this research, we examine the overlooked role of middle authorship. Middle authorship contributes to various indices of productivity, while having lower costs. Study 1 looks at five years of authorship in two major journals in social and personality psychology. Study 2 examines publication records of all social psychology faculty in the Netherlands. Both studies find that women have fewer authorship possibilities: In Study 1, women were underrepresented as authors in academic journals, while women in Study 2 had shorter publication lists. More importantly, this tendency was exacerbated for middle authorship positions. Furthermore, the percentage of middle authorship publications were positively related to more publications overall. A focus on middle authorship highlights previously underestimated challenges women continue to face in psychological research. © 2021 PsychOpen. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Some evidence for a gender gap in personality and social psychology Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Brown, A.J.
    ;
    Goh, J.X.
    This research examined a possible gender gap in personality and social psychology. According to membership demographics from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), women and men are represented near parity in the field. Yet despite this equal representation, the field may still suffer from a different type of gender gap. We examined the gender of first authors in two major journals, citations to these articles, and gender of award recipients. In random samples of five issues per year across 10 years (2004-2013; N = 1,094), 34% of first authors in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology were women and 44% of first authors in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin were women. Articles authored by men were cited more than those authored by women. In examining the gender of award recipients given by SPSP (2000-2016), on average, 25% of the recipients were women. © The Author(s) 2016.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Was the COVID-19 Pandemic Associated with Gender Disparities in Authorship of Manuscripts Submitted to Clinical Neuropsychology Journals? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Babicz, M.A.
    ;
    Matchanova, A.
    ;
    Broomfield, R.
    ;
    Desruisseaux, L.A.
    ;
    Gereau, M.M.
    Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals. Method: Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender. Results: Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field. Conclusions: Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic. Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Aguinis, Herman
    ;
    Ji, Young Hun
    ;
    Joo, Harry
    We examined the gender productivity gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and other scientific fields (i.e., applied psychology, mathematical psychology), specifically among star performers. Study 1 included 3,853 researchers who published 3,161 articles in mathematics. Study 2 included 45,007 researchers who published 7,746 articles in genetics. Study 3 included 4,081 researchers who published 2,807 articles in applied psychology and 6,337 researchers who published 3,796 articles in mathematical psychology. Results showed that (a) the power law with exponential cutoff is the best-fitting distribution of research productivity across fields and gender groups and (b) there is a considerable gender productivity gap among stars in favor of men across fields. Specifically, the underrepresentation of women is more extreme as we consider more elite ranges of performance (i.e., top 10%, 5%, and 1% of performers). Conceptually, results suggest that individuals vary in research productivity predominantly because of the generative mechanism of incremental differentiation, which is the mechanism that produces power laws with exponential cutoffs. Also, results suggest that incremental differentiation occurs to a greater degree among men and certain forms of discrimination may disproportionately constrain women's output increments. Practically, results suggest that women may have to accumulate more scientific knowledge, resources, and social capital to achieve the same level of increase in total outputs as their male counterparts. Finally, we offer recommendations on interventions aimed at reducing constraints for incremental differentiation among women that could be useful for narrowing the gender productivity gap specifically among star performers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).