PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.TransplantationLanguage: search.filters.language.English

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Transplanting Change: The Slow Progress of Gender Equity in Editorial Leadership Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-04)
    Rampersad, Christie
    ;
    Villemure-Poliquin, Noemie
    ;
    Selzner, Nazia
    ;
    Tsien, Cynthia
    ;
    Shwaartz, Chaya
    Background: Gender disparities in academic medicine, including journal editorships, are well-documented, but field-specific evaluation is essential to identify and address inequities. Solid organ transplantation, a diverse and multidisciplinary field, reflects broader imbalances, yet editorial board distributions remain understudied. We examined gender distribution, temporal trends, and predictors of female editorship in high-impact transplantation journals. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the top 20 transplantation journals by 2024 Scimago Journal Rank. Editor gender, specialty, geographic location, and journal characteristics were extracted from public sources. Gender was determined through web searches and validated software. Female representation among editors-in-chief in 2024 was compared to 2014. Predictors of female editorship were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 1479 editors, 31% were female, including 3/24 (13%) editors-in-chief and 29/90 (32%) chief/deputy editors. Female editors-in-chief was unchanged from 2014 to 2024 (10% vs 13%, p = .99). Physicians comprised 80% of editors, with lower female representation than non-physicians (28% vs 46%, p < .001). Female editorship was lowest among surgeons (16%) and highest in allied health (77%). Most editors (94%) were from high-income countries, with no difference between high- and middle-income countries (p = .99), and none from low-income countries. Odds of female editorship were lower for surgeons (OR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.49) and higher for allied health (OR: 6.50; 95% CI: 2.71, 18.1). Conclusions: Female representation on transplant editorial boards aligns with workforce proportions but remains notably lower among editors-in-chief, stable over the past decade. Targeted policies, mentorship, and tracking gender-metrics are critical to promote equity in academic transplantation.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there an editorial glass ceiling? Editorial leadership in nephrology and transplantation journals: A gender-based cross-sectional analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Scarlato, Rose-Marie
    ;
    Wyburn, Kate
    ;
    Wyld, Melanie L.
    AIM: Editors-in-Chief (EiC) play a key role as gatekeepers in academic medicine, often shaping research agendas. Women have historically been underrepresented in editorial leadership roles in academic medicine. The purpose of this study was to examine gender representation among EiC of contemporary transplantation and nephrology journals. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated gender disparities among EiC of transplantation and nephrology medical journals. The study population was drawn from journals in two subject categories (1) 'Transplantation' and (2) 'Urology and Nephrology' in the 2023 Journal Citation Reports. Binary gender classification (woman/man) was determined by the names/pronouns used to describe the EiC on the journal or institutional webpage. The primary outcome was the proportion of women EiC. Secondary outcome was the proportion of women EiC based on journal topic, location and metrics. Descriptive statistics were used. Gender differences were compared using students t-test or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 79 EiC were identified of which 16 (20%) were women and 63 (80%) were men (p < .001). Transplantation and nephrology journals had 21% and 20% women EiC, respectively. The proportion of women to men EiC was not impacted by journal category (p = .93), journal location (p = .61), journal impact factor (p = .71) or quartile (p = .59). CONCLUSION: There was a disparity in gender representation in EiC in nephrology and transplantation journals, with men holding 80% of all positions. These findings, among growing evidence of gender disparity, highlight a need for targeted efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Polanco, Nathalie A. Pena
    ;
    McNally, Bridgette B.
    ;
    Levy, Cynthia
    ;
    Carey, Elizabeth J.
    ;
    Palomique, Juvelyn
    BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that gender differences in academic medicine exist. Men frequently have better measures of performance such as number of publications, number of citations, remuneration, and funding. AIMS: To evaluate whether a gender disparity in authorship exists. METHODS: We recorded the gender of first and senior authors of original papers, editorials/reviews from liver-related manuscripts in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Transplantation, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Liver Transplantation from January 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Of 2424 articles reviewed, we excluded 232 (10%) due to inability to determine gender. Among papers analyzed, 72.0% were original and 28.1% reviews/editorials with 65.1% of first authors being male and 34.9% female. Only 20.3% of papers with multiple authors had a female senior author. The proportion of male first and senior authorship between original papers and reviews/editorials was comparable. 72% of original papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 28% females. 71% of review/editorial papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 29% females. When the senior author of an original paper was female, 47.1% of first authors were male and 52.9% female. When the senior author was male, 67.1% of first authors were male and 32.9% female (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant gender difference exists in Hepatology publications. Female authorship mirrors the percentage of female AASLD membership; however, female senior authorship remains disproportionate. In general, funding for male authors is greater. Fewer women are first authors when the senior author is male, highlighting the importance of female mentorship in Hepatology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Benjamens, S., S.benjamens@umcg.nl
    ;
    Banning, L.B.D.
    ;
    Van Den Berg, T.A.J.
    ;
    Pol, R.A.
    Background. Over the past decades, there has been a rapid change in the gender ratio of medical doctors, whereas gender differences in academia remain apparent. In transplantation research, a field already understaffed with female doctors and researchers, there is little published data on the development in proportion, citations, and funding of female researchers over the past years. Methods. To evaluate the academic impact of female doctors in transplantation research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis (01 January 1999 to 31 December 2018) of high-impact scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in this field. Web of Science data was used in combination with software R-Package "Gender," to predict gender by first names. Results. For this study, 15 498 (36.2% female; 63.8% male) first and 13 345 (30.2% female; 69.8% male) last author gender matches were identified. An increase in the percentage of female first and last authors is seen in the period 1999-2018, with clear differences between countries (55.1% female authors in The Netherlands versus 13.1% in Japan, for example). When stratifying publications based on the number of citations, a decline was seen in the percentage of female authors, from 34.6%-30.7% in the first group (≤10 citations) to 20.8%-23.2% in the fifth group (>200 citations), for first (P < 0.001) and last (P = 0.014) authors, respectively. From all first author name-gender matches, 6574 (41.6% female; 58.4% male, P < 0.001) publications reported external funding, with 823 (35.5% female; 64.5% male, P = 0.701) reported funding by pharmaceutical companies and 1266 (36.6% female; 63.4% male, P < 0.001) reporting funding by the National Institutes of Health. Conclusions. This is the first analysis of gender bias in scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in transplantation research. We show ongoing differences between male and female authors in citation rates and rewarded funding in this field. This requires an active approach to increase female representation in research reporting and funding rewarding. © 2020 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.