PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 13

Gender disparities in authorship in European cardio-thoracic journals Open PDF
(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025-06-19)
Galeone, Antonella
;
Cleuziou, Julie
;
Perrone, Fabiola
;
Maffei, Irene
;
Fiorinelli, Giorgia
OBJECTIVES The goal was to evaluate gender authorship in 2 cardio-thoracic surgical journals. METHODS We performed a bibliometric analysis of all articles published from 2017 to 2022 in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. For each article, the gender and academic rank of the first, senior and corresponding authors were verified by Internet search, email contact or use of the application Genderize.io. Articles were categorized based on topic, type and country of origin. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate gender authorship trend over time. RESULTS A total of 5243 articles were included in the analysis. Women represented 18% of first authors, 7% of senior authors and 13% of corresponding authors; no trend was seen over time. Women represented 16% of first authors and 7% of senior authors in adult cardiac surgery, 23% of first authors and 9% of senior authors in congenital cardiac surgery and 19% of first authors and 8% of senior authors in thoracic surgery. Male first authors were more frequently full professors (17% vs 5%) and associate professors (16% vs 8%), and male senior authors were more frequently full professors (48% vs 31%) and associate professors (16% vs 8%) compared to female senior authors. CONCLUSIONS The proportion of female authors is significantly lower than that of male authors in highest-impact European cardio-thoracic surgery journals, and no significant increase in female authorship has been demonstrated in recent years. Increasing awareness of gender disparities is essential to facilitate equal career opportunities and academic advancement for women in cardio-thoracic surgery.
Scientific Performance Assessments Through a Gender Lens: a Case Study on Evaluation and Selection Practices in Academia
(2018)
Nielsen, Matthias Wullum
The focus on excellence and quality assurance in the academy has spawned a significant increase in the use of bibliometric measures in performance assessments of individual researchers. This article investigates the organizational consequences of this development through a gender lens. Based on a qualitative case study of evaluation and selection practices at a Danish university, a number of potential gender biases related to the use of bibliometric performance measures are identified. By taking as default the research preferences, approaches and career paths of a succesful group of predominantly male scholars, evaluators using bibliometrics risk disadvantaging candidates diverging from the norm with implications for gender stratification. Despite these potential biases, bibliometric measures come to function as technologies supporting a managerial narrative of the gender-blind organization. They adhere to the prevailing ethos of the academic meritocracy by standardizing the criteria for organizational advancement and ensuring transparency and accountability in the selection process. While bibliometric tools in this sense may lead to the recruitment of scientists with a strong CV and track record, they may at the same time prevent many talented researchers diverging from the norm from being recognized and succeed as academics.
Who am I, and who are you, and who are we? A Scientometric Analysis of Gender and Geography in HCI
(2022)
McKay, D.
;
Zhang, H.
;
Buchanan, G.
Conference authorship, attendance and presentation is a key measure of quality in the HCI academic, yet we know conferences are not equally accessible for reasons that have nothing to do with quality. In this paper we examine two axes of diversity: gender, and geographic location (of both authors and conferences) and examine how they affect participation at major HCI conferences. Diversity in a group is associated with better outcomes from its work, and HCI has made numerous contributions to increasing representation in other communities. Reflecting on our own situation can produce recommendations for the planning of future HCI conferences, and identify challenges of representation that the HCI community should endeavor to address. © 2022 ACM.
Sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research Open PDF
(2019)
Liang, Jennifer J.
;
Belcastro, Alexandra
;
Levi, Jessica
Objectives/Hypothesis To characterize the sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research. Study Design Published research data analysis. Methods The total number of male and female participants, study characteristics, and sex data handling were abstracted from all original studies containing human participants published in five major otolaryngology journals from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Results Of the 1,128 studies from 2016 included in the analysis, 88.5% specified the sex of participants. There were 3,605,636 (42.1%) men and 4,515,508 (52.8%) women, with 429,006 (5.0%) participants unspecified. However, the average proportions of male and female participants (wherein studies are weighted the same, regardless of number of participants) were 0.579 and 0.421, respectively. Studies from the United States had a significantly higher proportion of women than studies from outside the United States. Subspecialties varied significantly in proportions. Average sex proportions in 2016 remained similar to those in 2006. For all studies, fewer than 40% of studies used any sex data for reporting of outcomes, for any sex-related analysis, or for discussion of results. Conclusions There was a higher average proportion of male participants than female. Studies originating in the United States included a greater number of female participants than those originating elsewhere, a possible result of explicit sex-inclusion policies governing research in the United States. Inclusion of women did not changed from 2006 to 2016, but analysis of sex data improved. Improvement of reporting, analysis, and discussion with regard to sex would benefit otolaryngology research and improve treatment for both sexes. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:E420–E427, 2019
Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF
(2021)
Whitelaw, Sera
;
Sullivan, Kristen
;
Eliya, Yousif
;
Alruwayeh, Mohammad
;
Thabane, Lehana
AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.
Women Underrepresentation in R&I: A Sector Program Assessment of the Contribution of Gender Equality Policies in Research and Innovation. Open PDF
(2020)
Striebing, Clemens
;
Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia
;
Palmén, Rachel
;
Holzinger, Florian
;
Nagy, Beata
Despite decades of efforts to achieve gender equality in research and innovation (R&I), all EU member states still face remarkable difficulties in driving forward the development of their innovation system while at the same time improving gender equality by using all the available research potential. In this paper we focus on the development of the share of women researchers in four national innovation systems, i.e. in Austria, Denmark, Hungary and Spain in the time period 2005-2015. The four selected cases represent countries with significant differences in their innovation capacity, gender regimes and progress of gender equality in R&I. A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is carried out to conduct a sector program evaluation based on statistical data and qualitative studies to understand the dynamic development of the proportion of women researchers. The study aims to provide insights into the aggregated gender equality interventions and policies implemented in the four countries studied and their contributions to the development of the proportion of women scientists at the structural level. The analysis reveals that the development of the share of women researchers during the studied period has been particularly influenced by contextual factors, namely the relative size of the business enterprise sector and the share of women among holders of tertiary education. While this is the case, it is found that gender equality interventions need to be more widespread and more effectively designed to be a strong contributing factor to an increasing representation of women in R&I.
Diversity in high-impact psychiatric publishing: gender parity within reach? Open PDF
(2022)
Gmeiner, A.
;
Trimmel, M.
;
Gaglia-Essletzbichler, A.
;
Schrank, B.
;
Süßenbacher-Kessler, S.
Gender parity and authorship diversity are declared goals in the publishing world. This study assessed the progress of authorship gender distribution over a quarter of a century and geographic diversity over the last 15 years in high-impact psychiatric journals. All articles published in 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the British Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry were included and compared with data from three points in time starting in 1994. Descriptive statistics were gathered, and chi-square tests were performed. All tests were conducted as two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Inter-rater reliability was calculated via Cohen’s kappa. In 2019 a total of 473 articles were published. Forty percent of all authors, 42.3% of first authors, and 29.4% of senior authors were female. Counting original research articles only, female first authorship reached 50.4%. In the 25-year period between 1994 and 2019, female first (p <.001), female senior (p <.001), and female overall (p <.001) authorship has increased. In the specific period between 2014 and 2019, overall female senior authorship in all articles (p =.940) as well as first (p =.101) and senior (p =.157) in original research plateaued. In non-original research articles, female first authorship was higher in 2019 compared to 2014 (p =.014), whilst female senior authorship plateaued (p =.154). Geographic diversity was low and did not change over time. Gender parity in the subcategory original research articles was reached for the first time in 2019. Senior female authorship and geographic diversity remain areas of concern that need further investigation and specific interventions. © 2022, The Author(s).
Women's Authorship of Reviews in Ophthalmic Journals over Time Open PDF
(2021)
Gertig, D.
;
Keane, M.C.
;
Matthews, J.M.
;
Williams, K.A.
;
Smith, J.R.
Purpose:To investigate prevalence and trends in women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals over 2 decades.Design:Literature survey.Methods:Total number of authors, and number and gender of first and senior (last-named) authors, were identified in all full reviews published in Prog Retin Eye Res, Surv Ophthalmol, and Curr Opin Ophthalmol for the calendar years 1999, 2009, and 2019. The gender of authors was assigned manually by multiple methods. The subspecialty area of each review was captured by keyword and text search. Country of origin was determined from attributions of first and senior authors.Results:The gender of 841 first and senior authors was assigned unequivocally for 471 articles (96%). The frequency of women's authorship rose significantly over time (1999, 2009, 2019) for both first authors (19%, 32%, 44%; P < 0.001) and senior authors (16%, 19%, 29%; P = 0.018). The number of single-author reviews decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001), as did the proportion of reviews with neither a first nor a senior woman author (P < 0.001). Women's first authorship increased over time for reviews on glaucoma (P < 0.001), while women's senior authorship increased for anterior segment/cataract (P = 0.036). The proportion of reviews with a woman first or senior author did not differ by country of origin (P = 0.887 and P = 0.520, respectively).Conclusions:Women's authorship of articles in ophthalmic review journals increased significantly over the 20-year period, but a gender disparity remained: in 2019, more than 55% of first authors, and more than 70% of senior authors, were men. © 2021 Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.
Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues and approaches Open PDF
(2020)
Fox, M.F.
In the social study of science, gender is a critical research site because relations of gender are hierarchical and inequality is a central feature of science. The focus here is on a key dimension of gender and scientific careers: academic rank, particularly that of full professor. This article concentrates on quantitative and qualitative approaches that have occurred in two focal problem areas related to gender, science, and rank: collaboration patterns and evaluative practices. The approaches encompass analyses of large and small groups and comparative cases, with surveys, bibliometrics, experiments, and interviews. This breadth of approaches reflects a search for explanations of the pervasive and persistent relationships between gender and academic rank. The analyses presented here point to the complexities of gender disparities in collaboration. These appear in team compositions, divisions of labor and power dynamics, integration into departmental units, and international coauthorship. The analyses also reveal ways that limited clarity in evaluation bears on gender disparities. Continuing understandings of gender, science, and rank will result in multi level analyses: those at organizational levels along with those of individual scientists. © 2020 Mary Frank Fox. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Gender disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership Open PDF
(2021)
Cevik, Muge
;
Haque, Syed Arefinul
;
Manne-Goehler, Jennifer
;
Kuppalli, Krutika
;
Sax, Paul E.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials. METHODS: We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/. RESULTS: Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results