PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.FranceSubject: search.filters.subject.Bibliometrics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contribution of women authors in French medical journals from 1983 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Schohn, A.
    ;
    Wathelet, M.
    ;
    Noël, G.
    Purpose: Despite the feminization of the medical profession, the academic world remains largely male-dominated. Several studies conducted in the English-speaking world have shown that women are published less than men. Our goal is to define the evolution of the role of women in five French medical journals. Materials and methods: The articles from five French journals (Revue du Praticien, Bulletin du Cancer, Exercer, Presse Médicale, Cancer/Radiothérapie) published in February between 1983 and 2019 were included. We selected twelve years from that period of time. The analysis was completed using Cochran-Armitage tests with a significance level of < 0,05. Among the authors, 4397 were included in total and we were able to determine the gender of 4309 of them. Results: The percentage of female authors went from 16% in 1983 to 36.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). This rise is more significant for those specializing in surgery than for those specializing in medicine, with a percentage going from 14% to 38.5% (p < 0.001) against 16.8% to 35.4% (p < 0.001) respectively. In 2019, women still only represent 30.2% of the last authors, 27.6% of editorial authors and 30.6% of corresponding authors. Conclusion: Our study underlines a significant increase in the number of female authors and highlights that their position as authors remains on the margins of the most prestigious authorial positions. While we can celebrate this increase, we nevertheless notice that there are fewer female authors than female practitioners. © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D’Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.