PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Sports MedicineGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USA

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women's Footprint in Anti-Doping Sciences: A Bibliometric Approach to Research Impact Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kiss, Anna
    ;
    Lakner, Zoltán
    ;
    Soós, Sándor
    ;
    Petróczi, Andrea
    Bibliometrics, via the exploitation of large-scale publication data, is a facile approach to explore gender-related trends, especially gender equality in academic publishing and authorship. For the first time, this study aims to investigate the gender-related trends in anti-doping sciences to (1) explore the relational structure of gender aspects of authorial, topical, and methodological features, (2) give recognition to women's contribution to anti-doping research, and (3) identify unique "gendered" potentials for advancing anti-doping research. To deliver on these aims, we employed bibliometric tools to publication records in anti-doping. After constructing a database containing academic publications on any aspect of anti-doping with at least one woman among the authors, we applied state-of-the-art methods from bibliometric science mapping and network analysis. The Lotka distribution model showed that the anti-doping research is a closed community with only 70 authors appearing more than once. Male authors being the majority (66.2%), women are under-represented in this field. The most important authorship position in the academic articles is mainly occupied by men, publications with male corresponding authors were in 774 out of 991 anti-doping related papers. The close connection of the top twenty most influential authors, men and women, to the World Anti-Doping Agency in some professional capacity suggest that the Agency have an influence on the anti-doping research beyond directly providing funding. In terms of geographical regions, publications with female authors were dominated anti-doping research in Italy, Romania, and Spain. In research networks to date, women have outperformed male authors in information centrality, which means that women in anti-doping research have had higher level of control over the information flow in the field than their male counterparts. The results of this study confirm the potential of bibliometric approach in the identification of emerging research topics and quantifying gender differentiation in the field of anti-doping. Due to their higher information centrality, women are better positioned for problem-focused multidisciplinary research both within anti-doping community, and with researchers in cognate fields. Bibliometric analyses have proved to be a powerful tool for monitoring and advancing anti-doping research impact via identifying new avenues for multidisciplinary work, better gender representation, and diversity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prevalence of female authors in case reports published in the medical literature Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hsiehchen, D.
    ;
    Hsieh, A.
    ;
    Espinoza, M.
    IMPORTANCE Underrepresentation of female authors in research publications is prevalent, but it is unclear whether this is attributable to sex disparities in research conduct or authorship practices. Case reports are a poorly understood component of the biomedical corpus, and the production of anecdotal observations is not confounded by factors associated with disparities in female representation in research publications. Whether female authorship disparities exist in nonresearch publications of clinical information is unknown. OBJECTIVES To examine the authorship of case reports and elucidate factors associated with sex disparity. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study of all case reports published by US authors in 2014 and 2015 indexed in PubMed performed from July 2015 to July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of female first authors. The secondary outcome measures were the proportion of female last authors and female authorship representation among different clinical specialties. RESULTS Bibliometric data was abstracted from 20 427 case reports published across 2538 journals. A total of 7252 (36%) and 4825 (25%) case reports had a female first and last author, respectively. In comparison, 44%and 34%of US trainees and physicians, respectively, were female in 2015. Among adult case reports, female authorship was more prevalent in academic environments compared with community settings (34.0%vs 28.2%for female first authors and 23.4%vs 19.7% for female last authors). Across states, the proportions of female first authors and last authors were universally less than the proportions of female trainees and active female physicians, respectively. Female first authorship was associated with larger author teams (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.03), an academic affiliation (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 1.06-1.27), and a female last author (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 1.47-1.70). Relative to general internal medicine, specialties dominated by male clinicians were less frequently associated with female first authors. Several exceptions displaying a relatively equivalent tendency for male and female first authorship included oncology (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.81-1.16), ophthalmology (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.72-1.05), and radiation oncology (OR, 0.94 95%CI, 0.56-1.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The underrepresentation of women among first and last authors in publications of case reports underscores the pervasiveness of sex disparities in medicine. Collaboration and female mentors may be critical instruments in upsetting longstanding practices associated with sex bias. Not all clinical specialties were associated with lower-than-expected female authorship, and further exploration of specialty-specific norms in publication and mentorship may elucidate specific barriers to female authorship. © 2019 JAMA Network Open.All right reserved.
  • 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.