PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaSubject: search.filters.subject.United States

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • 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,
    Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Goyanes, Manuel
    ;
    Herrero, Esperanza
    ;
    de-Marcos, Luis
    Women researchers have been shown to be underrepresented in science, especially among the most productive scholars. This is especially relevant in the social sciences and humanities fields, where gender parity is closer, but disparities among top scholars are still pronounced. The gender gap in the field of communication has been explored from several approaches, but studies focusing on gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index are rather scarce. Drawing upon data retrieved from SciVal, we conducted a comparative study of the top 500 and top 100 most productive scholars (N = 5000) for each of the ten most productive countries in communication research in the 2019-2022 period: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, Germany, India, Australia, Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands. The results indicate a consistent underrepresentation of women, particularly among the top 500, across countries. Despite women being cited more frequently than men in some countries over shorter time frames, a gender bias persists favoring men, particularly when considering the h-index. All in all, our study shows that, despite hints of gender equality in citation patterns, the gender gap still constitutes a structural part of the field of communication when addressing gender representation in research productivity and long-term dynamics of research impact.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2020)
    Sá, Creso
    ;
    Cowley, Summer
    ;
    Martinez, Magdalena
    ;
    Kachynska, Nadiia
    ;
    Sabzalieva, Emma
    This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of “elite” by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper’s approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Academic Medicine Leadership: Has Anything Changed in 25 Years? Open PDF 
    (2016)
    Rochon, Paula A.
    ;
    Davidoff, Frank
    ;
    Levinson, Wendy
    Over the past 25 years, the number of women graduating from medical schools in the United States and Canada has increased dramatically to the point where roughly equal numbers of men and women are graduating each year. Despite this growth, women continue to face challenges in moving into academic leadership positions. In this Commentary, the authors share lessons learned from their own careers relevant to women's careers in academic medicine, including aspects of leadership, recruitment, editorship, promotion, and work-life balance. They provide brief synopses of current literature on the personal and social forces that affect women's participation in academic leadership roles. They are persuaded that a deeper understanding of these realities can help create an environment in academic medicine that is generally more supportive of women's participation, and that specifically encourages women in medicine to take on academic leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    h-Index and Academic Rank by Gender Among Breast Surgery Fellowship Faculty Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Radford, Diane M.
    ;
    Parangi, Sareh
    ;
    Tu, Chao
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Background: Gender disparities in academic promotion and leadership are well documented. Scholarly impact is essential for promotion. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a measure of impact using number of publications and citations. We sought to (i) evaluate breast surgery fellowship faculty in North America by academic rank and research impact using the h-index, (ii) determine whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity, and (iii) determine the relationship between academic rank, h-index, and gender. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of h-index and academic rank disparity in breast surgery faculty by gender was performed. We reviewed the faculty of Society of Surgical Oncology-accredited breast surgery fellowships in February 2019. Rank, gender, academic appointment, years in practice, program directorship, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center association, size of the program, and h-index (via Scopus) were recorded. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Fifty-two programs were identified, and 209 faculty had an h-index. Of them, 69.9% were women and 30.1% were men. h-index increased with academic rank although there was considerable overlap between ranks. Women were underrepresented at the professor level (46.4%), but accounted for the majority of assistant professors (91.5%, p < 0.001), and program directors (70.7%). Men professors had a significantly higher mean h-index than women professors, p < 0.001. However, women associate professors had a higher mean h-index than men, but this did not reach significance. Conclusions: Mean h-index increased with increasing rank among breast surgery faculty for both genders. Average h-index was significantly higher for men professors compared to women professors. No significant gender difference in h-index was found for assistant professors. For associate professors, h-index for women was higher than for men. Women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks despite forming the majority of breast surgical teaching faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Qamar, S.R.
    ;
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Bancroft, L.
    ;
    Munk, P.L.
    Introduction: Research productivity is one of the few quintessential gauges that North American academic radiology departments implement to determine career progression. The rationale of this study is to quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and academic advancements in the musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology to account for emerging trends in workforce diversity. Methods: Radiology residency programs enlisted in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) and International Skeletal Society (ISS) were searched for academic faculty to generate the database for gender and academic profiles of MSK radiologists. Bibliometric data was collected using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives, and analyzed using Stata version 14.2. Results: Among 274 MSK radiologists in North America, 190 (69.34%) were men and 84 (30.66%) were women, indicating a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 6.34; p value = 0.042). The available number of female assistant professors (n = 50) was more than half of the male assistant professors (n = 88), this ratio however, plummeted at higher academic ranks, with only one-fourth of women (n = 11) professors compared to men (n = 45). The male MSK radiologist had 1.31 times the odds of having a higher h-index, keeping all other variables constant. Conclusions: The trend of gender disparity exists in MSK radiology with significant underrepresentation of women in top tiers of academic hierarchy. Even with comparable h-indices, at the lower academic ranks, a lesser number of women are promoted relative to their male colleagues. Further studies are needed to investigate the degree of influence research productivity has, in determining academic advancement of MSK radiologists. © 2017, ISS.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences Among Academic Pediatric Radiology Faculty in the United States and Canada Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Counter, William B.
    ;
    Khurshid, Kiran
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Castillo, Mauricio
    ;
    White, Ammie M.
    OBJECTIVE: It is currently unknown whether efforts in recent years to create equal opportunities for female faculty in academic medicine have succeeded. We looked at faculty members in academic pediatric radiology departments across the United States and Canada to assess for evidence of gender disparities and differences in academic performance between males and females. METHODS: The analysis included diagnostic radiology programs across the United States and Canada, as specified by the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA Online) and the Canadian Resident Matching Service website. The Scopus database was used to retrieve the H-index, number of publications, and number of citations for each faculty member. We examined the distribution of male and female faculty members across geographical regions, academic ranks, and leadership roles. Academic performance was also compared. RESULTS: Across all regions and academic ranks, disparities exist between the number of male and female faculty members. The greatest disparity was found amongst the professor rank, where more than 70% of positions were occupied by males. Female professors were found to demonstrate similar levels of academic performance compared to their male counterparts, although this parity was not observed amongst assistant and associate professors. CONCLUSION: Women occupied almost half (46.6%) of the total academic pediatric radiology workforce, despite having been previously shown to make up only 21% of radiologists. However, gender disparities currently exist among academic pediatric radiology faculty, with a significantly higher percentage of men in pediatric radiology faculty positions. Women, however, currently occupy a greater percentage of leadership positions compared to men, even though the majority of senior academic ranks are held by men.
  • 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.