PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.Publication

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2016)
    Mueller, C.M.
    ;
    Gaudilliere, D.K.
    ;
    Kin, C.
    ;
    Menorca, R.
    ;
    Girod, S.
    Background Female surgeons have faced significant challenges to promotion over the past decades, with attrition rates supporting a lack of improvement in women's position in academia. We examine gender disparities in research productivity, as measured by the number of citations, publications, and h-indices, across six decades. Materials and methods The online profiles of full-time faculty members of surgery departments of three academic centers were reviewed. Faculty members were grouped into six cohorts by decade, based on year of graduation from medical school. Differences between men and women across cohorts as well as by academic rank were examined. Results The profiles of 978 surgeons (234 women and 744 men) were reviewed. The number of female faculty members in the institutions increased significantly over time, reaching the current percentage of 35.3%. Significant differences in number of articles published were noted at the assistant and full but not at the associate, professor level. Women at these ranks had fewer publications than men. Gender differences were also found in all age cohorts except among the most recent who graduated in the 2000s. The impact of publications, as measured by h-index and number of citations, was not consistently significantly different between the genders at any age or rank. Conclusions We identified a consistent gender disparity in the number of publications for female faculty members across a 60-year span. Although the youngest cohort, those who graduated in the 2000s, appeared to avoid the gender divide, our data indicate that overall women still struggle with productivity in the academic arena. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Female Authorship in High Impact Surgical Journals between 2008 and 2018 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Hart, K.L.
    ;
    Boitano, L.T.
    ;
    Tanious, A.
    ;
    Conrad, M.F.
    ;
    Eagleton, M.J.
    Objective: This study evaluates the distribution of authorship by sex over the last 10 years among the top 25 surgical journals. Summary of Background Data: Despite an increase in women entering surgical residency, there remains a sex disparity in surgical leadership. Scholarly activity is the foundation for academic promotion. However, few studies have evaluated productivity by sex in surgical literature. Methods: Original research in the 25 highest-impact general surgery/subspecialty journals were included (1/2008-5/2018). Journals with <70% identified author sex were excluded. Articles were categorized by sex of first, last, and overall authorship. We examined changes in proportions of female first, last, and overall authorship over time, and analyzed the correlation between these measurements and journal impact factor. Results: There were 71,867 articles from 19 journals included. Sex was successfully predicted for 87.3% of authors (79.1%-92.5%). There were significant increases in the overall percentage of female authors (b = 0.55, P<0.001), female first authors (b=0.97,P<0.001), and female last authors (b = 0.53, P < 0.001) over the study period. Notably, all cardiothoracic subspecialty journals did not significantly increase the proportion of female last authors over the study period. There were no correlations between journal impact factor and percentage of overall female authors (rs = 0.39, P = 0.09), female first authors (rs = 0.29, P = 0.22), or female last author (rs = 0.35, P = 0.13). Conclusions: This study identifies continued but slow improvement in female authorship of high-impact surgical journals during the contemporary era. However, the improvement was more apparent in the first compared to senior author positions. © 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in shoulder and elbow publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sequeira, S.B.
    ;
    Wright, M.A.
    ;
    Murthi, A.M.
    Hypothesis/Background: Female representation in orthopedics, and specifically shoulder and elbow surgery, lags behind other surgical subspecialities. There has been a growing interest in recent years to better characterize, and address, gender disparities in the field. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize gender trends in authorship in the shoulder and elbow literature from 2002 to 2020. Methods: Articles published from January 2002 to December 2020 in 15 clinical orthopedic and shoulder- and elbow-specific journals were extracted from the online PubMed database. Articles that included the first name of the first and senior authors and contained keywords related to the shoulder and elbow subspecialty were included. The Genderize algorithm was used to determine each author's gender. Gender-based publication trends from 2002 to 2020 were analyzed using descriptive and significance testing as well as logistic regression. Results: 34,695 articles met inclusion criteria and 52,497 unique authors were identified. Of these unique authors, 10,175 (19.4%) were female and 42,322 (80.6%) were male. On average, each unique female author published 1.7 ± 0.1 manuscripts since 2002 and each male author published 2.5 ± 0.2 (P < .001). Female representation in shoulder and elbow publications began at 10.2% in 2002 and rose to 15.9% in 2020 (P < .001). Female representation in the lead author position began at 4.1% in 2002 and rose to 5.8% in 2020 (P = .009). Female representation in the senior author position began at 6.0% in 2002 and rose to 9.1% in 2020 (P < .001). Conclusion: Although female representation in first, senior, and general authorship lags behind male representation in the shoulder and elbow literature, female authorship has significantly increased since 2002. The same men tend to publish more frequently while the number of unique female authors surpasses the annual representation of female authorship. Efforts to improve female representation in the field of orthopedic surgery should include efforts directed at improving female representation in academic literature. © 2022 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees
  • Item type:Publication,
    21st century gender trends of authorship in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Reeves, Samuel
    ;
    Loke, Wee Lee
    ;
    Mullerat-Pigem, Maria
    ;
    Patel, Dhruvi
    ;
    Brennan, Peter A.
    Despite forming the majority in undergraduate medicine and dentistry programmes, females remain under-represented in all surgical specialties, including oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Efforts are ongoing to promote female uptake in surgery. Research output is a key metric in measuring leadership and academic advancement within a specialty. The aim of this study was to assess female authorship in research published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from 2000-2020 with a retrospective cohort study of original articles and reviews published in the journal from five different volumes of the journal (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 as representative time points). The gender of the first and last authors were assessed for gender by first name recognition and verified with a web-search of the author using their stated institutional affiliation when this was not clear. Articles were excluded if the gender of one of the first or last author could not be determined. A total of 501 articles were included with the gender of 1002 authors analysed. 173 (17.3%) authors were female, and 828 (82.7%) were male. The most common author combination was male-male (70.3%) and the least common female-female (4.8%). The proportion of female authors increased over time from 9.3% in 2000 to 23.4% in 2020. Females remain under-represented within surgery, but female presence in academic output is increasing at a similar rate to the numbers of female uptake in the clinical workforce which is a promising sign and indicative of progress towards gender parity.