PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.SpainViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Grants & Awards

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    A new approach to funding acknowledgment field in the Spanish case: Can be used to identify gender gap in research funding?
    (International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2019)
    Mauleón, E.
    ;
    Bautista-Puig, N.
    Funding Acknowledgments (FA) in research publications is a way to express gratitude to the different entities who funded or contributed somehow to the research. However, there are few studies that address the issue of gender gap funding by using the field ‘Funding Acknowledgments’ (FA) on the Web of Science (WoS). The objectives of this study are three-fold: • Quantify the presence of men and women in scientific publications as a result of funded and non-funded research. • Describe funding patterns in the area of ‘Green & Sustainable Science & Technology’ by gender. • Analyse funding effect in scientific publications by men and women through collaboration, impact and visibility
  • Item type:Publication,
    What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Cruz-Castro, L.
    ;
    Sanz-Menendez, L.
    Criteria for assessing candidates are essential elements for the functioning of evaluation practices in academia. This article addresses a relevant issue of academia: the preference for evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion, as reported by female and male academics employed at Spanish universities. We use survey data from 4,460 faculty members, testing whether there are differences in the evaluation criteria that women and men prefer and exploring the factors that account for such preferences. Our focus is on bibliometric evaluation criteria. We propose an analytical model that considers the influence of career and quality factors, values about universalism and the mission of universities, and beliefs about meritocracy in the context of the academic evaluation system. We use a binary logistic model to explain the preference for bibliometric criteria and develop the comparisons by gender using predicted probabilities and marginal effects for estimating the difference. We find that female academics do not have the same preferences as men and report lower preferences for bibliometrics. However, women at the highest research quality levels have similar probabilities than males to prefer bibliometric criteria for evaluation. © 2021