PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaSubject: search.filters.subject.Publications

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in the publication rate among breast imaging radiologists in the United States and Canada Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Shah, S.
    ;
    Ahmadi, M.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Carlos, R.
    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether academic achievement differs by gender among breast imaging radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined the gender disparity in academic breast radiology using several parameters, including the h-index, the number of publications, and the number of citations. We also inspected gender disparity in academic ranks and leadership ranks. RESULTS. The research productivity of female breast imagers was found to be significantly lower than that of male colleagues across all academic ranks (p < 0.001). In addition, no correlation was noted between female gender and leadership positions (p = 0.57), despite the fact that women dominate the specialty of breast imaging. CONCLUSION. The number of publications by female radiologists has risen steadily over time; however, a significant gender disparity is seen in scholarly productivity. �© American Roentgen Ray Society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women’s role in neurosurgical research: is the gender gap improving? Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Pastor-Cabeza, M.
    ;
    Torné, R.
    ;
    García-Armengol, R.
    ;
    Menéndez-Osorio, B.
    ;
    Mosteiro-Cadaval, A.
    Objective The percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons. Methods Two of the most prominent neurosurgical journals—Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery—were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions’ region. Results A total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001). Conclusions Although this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers’ profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates. ©AANS 2021, except where prohibited by US copyright law
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender trends in authorship of Pediatric Radiology publications and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Ayyala, R.S.
    ;
    Trout, A.T.
    Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has heightened existing gender differences in academic productivity in medicine. There have been discrepant repercussions for women in academics due to the pandemic, including fewer publications, potentially impacting academic advancement. Objective: To evaluate trends over time in the gender of authors of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology. Materials and methods: This retrospective review of unsolicited manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology from January 2017 to December 2020 included only submissions from North America. For each submission, genders of the first, last (senior) and corresponding authors were inferred by inspection or confirmed by internet search. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare authorship gender proportions. Quarterly comparisons between 2019 and 2020 were performed to assess for differences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Between 2017 and 2020, 1,018 manuscripts were submitted. There was no significant difference in female authorship over time (P > 0.05 for first, last and corresponding authors), but there was an increase in female first authorship (38.6% in 2017, 43.2% in 2020). The frequencies of female first (P = 0.03) and last (P = 0.01) authors were significantly higher for educational manuscripts (reviews and pictorial essays) versus other manuscript types. Manuscript submissions increased in the second quarter of 2020; however, there was a statistically significant decrease in last authorship by women during this period (P = 0.02). Conclusion: Female authorship of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology has remained relatively stable between 2017 and 2020. During the early phase (March–May 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic, female last authorship was significantly lower versus the previous year. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.