PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • 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,
    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 Composition and Trends of Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia Editorial Board Membership: A 33-Year Analysis, 1987-2019 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Pagel, Paul S.
    ;
    Freed, Julie K.
    ;
    Lien, Cynthia A.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender disparities in editorial board composition exist in the vast majority of specialties including anesthesiology. If a similar lack of gender parity exists in cardiothoracic anesthesiology is unknown. The authors examined the gender composition and trends of the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) editorial board from the initial year of its publication (1987) to 2019. The authors tested the hypothesis that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history, but women are underrepresented compared with the percentage of those currently practicing academic cardiothoracic anesthesia in the United States (US). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Internet analysis. PARTICIPANTS: All members of the JCVA editorial board, 1987-2019. INTERVENTIONS: The JCVA editor-in-chief, the associate editor-in-chief, associate editors, section editors, and general editors on the board were extracted from the masthead of a single issue from each calendar year. The years were divided into quartiles (1987-1995, 1996-2003, 2004-2011, and 2012-2019) to collect representative samples of editorial board composition for analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2,797 members of the JCVA editorial board were positively identified (2,477 [88.6%] men; 310 [11.1%] women); 10 (0.3%) editors could not be identified. Four hundred and fourteen associate and section editors were recorded (men 360 [87.0%], women 54 [13.0%]). There were also 2,353 general editors (2,087 [88.7%] men; 256 [10.9%] women). The total number of JCVA board members, associate and section editors, and general editors progressively increased from 1987 to 1995 to 2012 to 2019. The percentage of women serving on the editorial board increased from 2.5% to 15.8%. Increases in the proportion of female general editors from 2.9% to 16.2% were responsible for this overall increase. A gender gap between the percentage of female first authors (data obtained from a previous publication) and editorial board members was observed in each quartile. Editorial board composition was also different than last author distribution in 1987 to 1995 and 2012 to 2019, but not the other 2 time periods. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the proportion of women serving on the JCVA editorial board has steadily increased over the journal's history. Nevertheless, women continue to be underrepresented on the JCVA board compared with the percentage of US female academic cardiothoracic anesthesiologists, and gender gaps between first and last authorship and board composition also persist.
  • 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.