PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • 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,
    Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science, 2018)
    Edwards, Hannah A.
    ;
    Schroeder, Julia
    ;
    Dugdale, Hannah L.
    The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal.
  • 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.