PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • 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,
    An International Survey of Female Dental Students' Perceptions About Gender Bias and Sexual Misconduct at Four Dental Schools. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ivanoff, Chris S.
    ;
    Luan, Diana M.
    ;
    Hottel, Timothy L.
    ;
    Andonov, Bogomil
    ;
    Ricci Volpato, Luiz Evaristo
    As women enter the dental profession in increasing numbers in North America and around the world, the questions of how they perceive their environment and what kind of barriers they face are important subjects to be addressed. The aim of this study was to assess and compare women dental students' perceptions of bias in their environment and experiences of sexual misconduct at one dental school in each of four countries. In spring 2017, 1,293 female students at four dental schools in the U.S., Bulgaria, Brazil, and India were invited to participate in a 24-item survey developed by researchers from the four countries; 990 students responded (response rate 76.6%). The overall majority of the respondents reported thinking the admissions process at their school was fair (79.7%); but a fifth of U.S. and Brazilian students perceived their school was not fully embracing of females, with most Bulgarian students agreeing (87.2%) and all Indian students disagreeing. Most respondents overall perceived that male faculty members did not favor male students (79.5%) and did not think there was discrimination against female students by faculty (87.1%), but half of the U.S. respondents reported feeling discriminated against by both male faculty and male students. When the responses "I've been verbally harassed" and "I've been somewhat verbally harassed" were combined, 10.1% of the U.S. respondents reported verbal harassment, compared to 20% of Brazilian, 15% of Bulgarian, and 2% of Indian respondents. When the responses "I've been sexually assaulted" and "I've been somewhat sexually assaulted" were combined, 6% of U.S. respondents reported being sexually assaulted, compared to 6.2% of Brazilian, 2.5% of Bulgarian, and none of the Indian respondents. Almost half (46.9%) of these students overall perceived their school was not or only somewhat vigilant about issues of sexual misconduct, and only 54% said they would feel comfortable or very comfortable reporting misconduct. These results suggest that academic dental institutions in all four countries need improvements to make their environments more equitable and free of bias and sexual misconduct.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • 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 inequalities in the dental science: An analysis of high impact publications Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sartori, L.R.M.
    ;
    Henzel, L.T.
    ;
    de Queiroz, A.B.L.
    ;
    Ramos, E.C.
    ;
    de Oliveira, L.J.C.
    Objective: To assess the participation of women in publications of dental journals with a high impact factor. Methods: Articles published in 2016, 2011, and 2006 in 10 dental journals chosen for their highest impact factors in each dental fields were included in this research. Articles-related variables collected included the country of origin of each author, the type of study, and gender of the researchers. Gender was examined through PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, and respective affiliated institutions. Furthermore, a website designed to discover the gender of names was used when the previous alternatives were not conclusive. Forward stepwise Poisson regression models were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 3365 studies were included in the first authorship analysis and 3398 in analysis related to last authorship. The prevalence of women as first authors was 37.2% (confidence interval (CI) 95% 34.5–37.5) and as last authors was 22.6% (CI 95% 21.3–23.9). Having a woman as the last author increased the presence of women in the first author position in scientific dental articles by 16% (prevalence ratio = 1.16, CI 95% [1.04–1.29]). The year of publication, journal, and region of the author were associated with an increase in the prevalence of women as last authors. From 2006 to 2016, the prevalence of women as last authors increased by 61%. Despite these trends, women were still underrepresented in science in the evaluated period. Conclusions: There are meaningful gender inequalities in publications of scientific dental papers. Encouraging women to lead research groups can reduce the inequities observed in the present study. © 2021 American Dental Education Association
  • 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,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in articles published in European Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology: evolution between 2002 and 2016 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Bernard, Chloé
    ;
    Pommier, Romain
    ;
    Vilgrain, Valérie
    ;
    Ronot, Maxime
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate gender differences in the authorship of articles published in two major European radiology journals, European Radiology (EurRad) and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR). METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed of 2632 papers published in EurRad and CVIR sampled over a period of 14 years (2002-2016). The authors' gender was determined. The analysis was focused on first and last authors. In addition, the characteristics of the articles (type, origin, radiological subspecialty, and country) were noted. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of first authors and 10% of the last authors were women. The proportion of women significantly increased over time in EurRad from 22% in 2002 to 35% in 2016 for first authors (p > 0.001), and from 13% in 2002 to 18% in 2016 for last authors (p = 0.05). There was no significant increase in the proportion of female authors in CVIR over time. Female authors were more frequently identified in breast imaging (48%), pediatrics, and gynecological imaging (29%). There were more female authors in articles from Spain (34%), the Netherlands (28%), France, Italy, and South Korea (26%). Forty-one percent and 21% of women were first authors with a woman or man as last author, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was a significant increase in female authorship in original diagnostic but not interventional imaging research articles between 2002 and 2016, with a strong influence of the radiological subspecialty. Women were significantly more frequently first authors when the last author was a woman. KEY POINTS: • There was a significant increase in female authorship in original diagnostic but not interventional imaging research articles between 2002 and 2016. • There is a strong influence of the radiological subspecialty on the percentage of female authors. • Women are significantly more frequently first authors when the last author is a woman.
  • 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 inequalities on editorial boards of indexed pediatrics journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo
    ;
    González de Dios, Javier
    ;
    Aleixandre-Agulló, Joan
    ;
    Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael
    BACKGROUND: The presence of women in decision-making positions, such as on editorial committees of biomedical journals, is not the same as that of men. This paper analyzes the gender composition of editorial committees (EBMs) and editors-in-chief (ECs) positions of pediatric journals. METHODS: The gender of EBMs and ECs of 125 journals classified in the pediatrics area of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) was analyzed. The following indicators were calculated: gender distribution of ECs and EBMs by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, quartile of the journal in JCR and country of affiliation of the members. RESULTS: The total number of EBMs was 4242. The distribution by sex of the ECs was 19.44% women and 80.56% men, while that of the EBMs were 33.05% women and 66.95% men. Twenty journals exhibited a greater representation of women than of men, and in four there was parity. Journals with greater participation of women specialized in nursing and physical therapy and were related to nutrition (lactation and breastfeeding). CONCLUSIONS: Only one-fifth of ECs and one-third of EBMs are females. Women's participation is higher in journals related to nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition. The United States has the highest number of EBMs, followed by the European Union. IMPACT: Only one-fifth of Editors-in-chief in pediatrics journals are female. Only one-third of Editorial Board Members in pediatrics journals are female. Women's participation is higher in editorials committees in pediatrics journals related to nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition. Medical and pediatric associations and societies must work together to eliminate the disparities that exist between women and men. Achieving gender equity and empowering all women is one of the World Health Organization's Sustainable Development Goals.