PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex differences in altmetric attention scores and traditional impact metrics of top‐cited general surgery literature: Cracks in the ceiling? Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2024-06-18)
    Waqar, Usama
    ;
    Martins, Russell Seth
    ;
    Siddiqui, Ayra
    ;
    Waheed, Ayesha Akbar
    ;
    Ahmed, Abdullah
    Background Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top‐cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs). Methods We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H‐index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count. Results Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0–63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0–28.5]; p < 0.001) and lower H‐indices (24.0 [11.0–45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0–50.0]; p = 0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0–85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p < 0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001–1.004]) and lower H‐index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977–0.997]). Conclusion Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Women in the Top 100 Most Influential Arthroplasty Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-04)
    Payne, Camryn S.
    ;
    Boddu, Sayi P.
    ;
    Beckett, Nathan C.
    ;
    Cancio-Bello, Alexandra M.
    ;
    Bingham, Joshua S.
    BACKGROUND: Women account for 2% of arthroplasty surgeons in the United States. It is important to understand how women contribute to the literature in the field of arthroplasty currently. We compared the proportion of first, middle, and senior authorship by women in the top 100 most-cited hip and knee arthroplasty studies published between 2010 and 2024 to the national proportion of women hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons and evaluated the H-indices of authors by gender. METHODS: The literature search was performed on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database. Once 100 studies met the inclusion criteria, those that did not originate from the United States or whose author first names were not included were excluded. The author's gender was determined by first name. The Scopus author database was used to determine the H-index for first and senior authors. RESULTS: There were 91 papers that met the criteria. These papers were produced by a total of 458 authors, of whom 13.7% were women. There were six (7.4%) of 81 unique first authors, 50 (15.8%) of 315 middle authors, and seven (11.3%) of 62 unique senior authors who were women. Women had lower average H-indices than men. CONCLUSIONS: Women's contributions to the most influential hip and knee arthroplasty articles are much higher than predicted given their underrepresentation in the field, indicating the substantial value they add to leading arthroplasty research. Despite this, disparities exist for women in authorship rank and H-index. These disparities may be mitigated by intentionally fostering greater support for women throughout all phases of orthopaedic surgery training to improve opportunities for impactful research and career advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Female Plastic Surgery Resident Authorship - Signs of Changing Times? Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Maisner, R.S.
    ;
    Cadwell, J.B.
    ;
    Mansukhani, P.A.
    ;
    Naides, A.
    ;
    Siniakowicz, C.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender discrepancies exist in academia for leadership positions, advancement opportunities, and research. As of 2019, the ratio of total male-to-female attending plastic and reconstructive surgeons was 4.8:1. However, the ratio of male-to-female residents in integrated plastic surgery programs fell to 1.3:1, indicating rising female representation. With more balanced gender distributions of residents, the authors sought to determine whether this translates to greater equality of opportunities and achievements. Specifically, this study compares the academic productivity of male and female integrated plastic surgery residents. METHODS: A list of integrated plastic surgery residency programs was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and ranked by reputation using the Doximity Residency Navigator. Integrated plastic surgery residents from 2019 to 2020 were identified via program websites and social media accounts. Works published during residency were identified through PubMed and Scopus from July 1 of each resident's intern year through August 10, 2020. Demographic variables for residents, including training class and medical school, as well as for programs, including geographic region, Doximity ranking, and medical school affiliation, were collected. Medical schools were ranked according to US News by research. Research productivity was assessed through the number of total research articles with authorship position (first, second, or last), the number of articles published in plastic surgery journals with the highest impact factors (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal), and H-indices. Chi-Squared tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to make comparisons between male and female residents (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In total, 931 residents in 81 integrated plastic surgery programs were identified, including 534 (57.4%) male and 397 (42.6%) female residents. There were no differences between male and female residents in terms of training year or program geography. Female residents were more likely to come from a top-50 medical school than males (54.7% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in gender distribution of residents from top-20 programs or programs affiliated with a top-20 medical school. The median (IQR) number of publications in total, and for each gender, was 3 (1-6). There was no difference in the number of total publications by training year by gender, besides the second-year resident class where male residents had a median (IQR) of 2 (1-4) compared to 1 (0-3) (p = 0.028). Male and female residents did not differ with regards to authorship position or proportion of times publishing in top journals. The distribution of H-indices for male residents was slightly higher than female residents (p = 0.003), but the median (IQR) was the same at 3 (1-5). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, male and female integrated plastic surgery residents have similar levels of academic productivity. This suggests that female representation is slowly increasing along the pipeline in academia, representing a paradigm shift from previous trends of gender inequality in plastic surgery. © 2021 Association of Program Directors in Surgery
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientific Impact of Women in Academic Surgery Open PDF 
    (2008)
    Housri, N.
    ;
    Cheung, M.C.
    ;
    Koniaris, L.G.
    ;
    Zimmers, T.A.
    Objective: To evaluate the scientific impact of women in the surgical literature. Methods: Gender of the principal investigator of every abstract presented at the 2002, 2003, and 2004 annual meetings of the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons was identified by internet search. Resulting publications were identified using PubMed. Journal impact factor and number of article citations were determined using ISI Web of Knowledge. Results: The principal investigator's gender was identified for 649 (98.8%) of the 657 abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 AAS meetings. Women authored 9.1% of abstracts and 11.8% of total resulting publications. The publication rate of abstracts by women was significantly higher than that of men (69.5% versus 52.4%, P = 0.0132). There was a trend toward higher average impact factors of journals in which female authors published (3.265 versus 2.673, P = 0.0626). There was no significant difference in mean number of citations per publication. The principal investigator's gender was identified for all 337 (100%) abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 SUS meetings. Women authored 11.0% of abstracts and 11.2% of resulting publications. Publication rates and average citation numbers were similar for female and male authors. The average impact factors of journals in which women published were significantly higher (4.741 versus 3.348, P = 0.0082). Conclusions: Although women comprise a small proportion of principal investigators on abstracts presented at these conferences, the quality of their presented work is equal to or better than those of their male counterparts. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review Open PDF 
    (J Surg Res, 2024)
    S, Subramanian
    ;
    Rs, Maisner
    ;
    N, Patel
    ;
    A, Song
    ;
    L, Yuan
    Abstract Introduction: Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities. Methods: Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles. Results: Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005). Conclusions: While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.