PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.STEMGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Spain

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Thelwall, M.
    There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Perceived Supports and Barriers for Career Development for Second-Year STEM Students Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Peña-Calvo, José-Vicente
    ;
    Inda-Caro, Mercedes
    ;
    Rodríguez-Menéndez, Carmen
    ;
    Fernández-García, Carmen-María
    Background This study was designed to determine the effect of perceived supports and barriers on self-efficacy beliefs and other social-cognitive variables related to second-year science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students' career development. Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) states that career interest is influenced by four cognitive-person variables: self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interests, and goals. Other variables, such as social supports and barriers, also play an important role. Purpose This study explores the influence of gender and STEM major on perceived supports and barriers. It also analyzes the effects of perceived supports and barriers on the SCCT cognitive-person variables. Method Participants were 811 sophomore students in STEM programs at the University of Oviedo, Asturias, Spain. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests analyzed the difference in the perceived supports and barriers by gender and students' major. Multiple-group structural equation modeling was implemented to predict the relationship between perceived supports and barriers and SCCT cognitive-person variables. Results The engineering students perceived more teaching staff barriers and fewer teaching staff supports than other students. Male software and hardware engineering students perceived more barriers than other male engineering students. The fit of the model revealed an important effect of perceived teaching staff supports on the four cognitive-person variables. Conclusions To determine the influences on the cognitive-person variables, it is necessary to analyze the perceived supports and barriers. Peers and family are the most important perceived supports, while teaching staff and financial difficulties are the greatest perceived barriers.