PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11

A longitudinal analysis of gendered career trajectories and academic efficiency in North American MD/PhD faculty Open PDF
(Informa UK Limited, 2026-05-28)
Quon, Stephanie
;
Joseph, Marissa
;
Khosa, Faisal
Gender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing women's representation in higher education. Prior research highlights the underrepresentation of women in senior ranks and leadership roles, yet few studies have assessed these disparities using time-adjusted productivity metrics. This study aims to evaluate gender-based differences in academic rank, scholarly productivity, and leadership representation among MD/PhD faculty in North America, accounting for career length and institutional variability. A secondary analysis was conducted on a dataset of 6,149 MD/PhD faculty from 122 accredited North American medical schools. Time-adjusted measures of productivity, H-index per year and citations per year, were calculated. Gender differences in rank, productivity, and leadership were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests and descriptive statistics. Institutional-level representation of women in leadership roles was also analyzed. Women held significantly lower academic ranks than males and were underrepresented in departmental leadership roles. Despite achieving assistant and full professorships earlier, women were overall less likely to reach these positions. Males exhibited higher time-adjusted H-index and citation rates (p < .0001), with a compounded 3.5-year publication gap. Institutional analysis revealed stark variability: 38 institutions had no women in MD/PhD leadership roles, while fewer than 20 percent achieved gender parity. Gender disparities in academic medicine cannot be explained by productivity alone. Structural barriers, opaque promotion criteria, and institutional cultures continue to impede women's advancement and leadership. Addressing these inequities requires transparent policies, targeted mentorship, equity audits, and inclusive leadership pathways to support a more equitable academic workforce.
Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men Open PDF
(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, 2021)
Murrar, Sohad
;
Johnson, Paula A.
;
Lee, You-Geon
;
Carnes, Molly
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
Has female authorship in family medicine research evolved over time? Open PDF
(2020)
Jabbarpour, Y.
;
Wilkinson, E.
;
Coffman, M.
;
Mieses, A.
PURPOSE Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. METHODS Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. RESULTS For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P= .49). CONCLUSIONS Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship. © 2020, Annals of Family Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved.
Race, ethnicity, and gender in academic obstetrics and gynecology: 12-year trends Open PDF
(2020)
Wooding, Denise J.
;
Das, Priya
;
Tiwana, Sabeen
;
Siddiqi, Javed
;
Khosa, Faisal
Background Diversity among healthcare teams enhances team function and improves the quality of patient care and outcomes. Women and racial minorities are historically underrepresented in medicine. However, the representation of gender and racial or ethnic groups in academic obstetrics and gynecology in the United States has not been described in recent years. Objective This study aimed to describe the recent state and trends in gender and racial or ethnic disparities in academic obstetrics and gynecology. Study Design Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges between 2007 and 2018 were analyzed to describe the trends in the representation of women and racial (white, Asian, black) or ethnic (Hispanic) groups. The 12-year trends in representation by academic ranks (all academic physicians, full professor, associate professor, instructor), leadership positions (chairperson), and tenure (not on track for tenure, on track for tenure, or tenured) were depicted. The 12-year trends were assessed using linear regression to determine whether the slope depicting the change in representation of each group from 2007 to 2018 was significantly nonzero. In addition, average representation of each group across the 12-year period was compared using a Student t test (for gender) or analysis of variance (for race and ethnicity). Results In 2018, there were 152 institutions and 6302 academic physicians included in the data set. On average across the 12-year period, academic physicians in obstetrics and gynecology were 43% male, 57% female, 68% white, 12% Asian, 8% black, and 5% Hispanic. Across the 12-year period, there was an increase in the total number of physicians from 4755 to 6302 (+166 per year; 95% confidence interval, 146–186; P<.0001), a 15% increase in the proportion of women (+1.38% per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.08%–1.68%; P<.0001), and an increase in the proportion of physicians from racial minorities (Asian, +0.11% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.08–0.15; P<.0001; black, +0.07% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.09; P=.0002; Hispanic, +0.06% per year; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.1; P=.0039). There was a greater proportion of white physicians in higher academic ranks (eg, full professor), leadership positions (eg, chairperson), and tenure than the proportion of white physicians overall, whereas the opposite was true for black and Hispanic physicians. Although women now make up 64% of all academic physicians in obstetrics and gynecology, there remains a far higher proportion of males in leadership positions (chairperson) and higher academic ranks (full professor). Similarly, a greater proportion of males were tenured than females. Conclusion Across the 12-year period, the representation of women and racial minorities has increased in academic obstetrics and gynecology in the United States. There is now a predominance of women, but there remains a trend for a predominance of white and male physicians in higher academic ranks, leadership positions, and tenure. It will be important to assess how these groups are represented in the coming years as the changing demographics of incoming cohorts progress through their careers to more senior positions. Promoting diversity in medical schools, leadership positions, and higher academic ranks may be an important area of focus.
Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine Open PDF
(2022)
Thelwall, M.
;
Maflahi, N.
Female under-representation continues in senior roles within academic medicine, potentially influenced by a perception that female research has less citation impact. This article provides systematic evidence of (a) female participation rates from the perspective of published journal articles in 46 Scopus medical subject categories 1996–2018 and (b) gender differences in citation rates 1996–2014. The results show female proportion increases 1996–2018 in all fields and a female majority of first-authored articles in two-fifths of categories, but substantial differences between fields. A paper is 7.3 times more likely to have a female first author in Obstetrics and Gynaecology than in Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Only three fields had a female last author majority by 2018, a probable side effect of ongoing problems with appointing female leaders. Female first-authored research tended to be more cited than male first-authored research in most fields (59%), although with a maximum difference of only 5.1% (log-transformed normalised citations). In contrast, male last-authored research tends to be more cited than female last-authored research, perhaps due to cases where a senior male has attracted substantial funding for a project. These differences increase if team sizes are not accounted for in the calculations. Since female first-authored research is cited slightly more than male first-authored research, properly analysed bibliometric data considering career gaps should not disadvantage female candidates for senior roles. © The Author(s) 2020.
Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals Open PDF
(2024)
Schaechter, Judith D.
;
Jacobs, Jeremy W.
;
Booth, Garrett S.
;
Dupont, William D.
;
Silver, Julie K.
Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.
Academic Radiology in North America: Underrepresentation of Women in Academic Ranks and Leadership Roles Open PDF
(2022)
Qamar, S.R.
;
Nayab, A.
;
Walsh, J.
;
Niu, B.
;
Norbash, A.
Introduction: Gender disparity persists in the top tiers of academic medicine and similar trends prevail in the leadership roles in North American academic institutions, despite an even gender balance of the medical graduates in North America. The purpose of our investigation was to study gender inequity in academic radiology in North America, by assessing and comparing the gender basis of academic rank and leadership roles as related to research productivity. Materials and Methods: The Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FRIEDA) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) were searched to generate a database of gender and academic profiles of radiology faculty members across academic institutions in North America. Bibliometric data were collected utilizing Elsevier’s SCOPUS as the reference source. Descriptive analytics were assessed using the SPSS (IBM, NY). Results: Of 151 academic radiology institutions across North America, academic rank information was available for 2679 radiologists of which 66.7% (1787/2679) were men and 33.3% were women (892/2679). Assistant professor (n = 1430/2679) constituted of 60.6% men (n = 866/1430) and 39.4% women (n = 564/1430) (p < 0.001 for the United States and p < 0.002 for Canada). Amongst associate professors (n = 679/2679), 71.1% are men (n = 483/679) and 28.9% are women (n = 196/679) (p < 0.001 for both the United States and Canada), while full professor (n = 570/2679), 76.8% are men (n = 438/570) and 23.2% are women (n = 132/570) (p < 0.001 for both the United States and Canada). Leadership roles are held by 418 faculty members, out of which 71.3% are men (n = 298/418) and 28.7% are women (n = 120/418). Conclusion: The majority of women academic radiologists are seen at the lowest rank of assistant professor, and are underrepresented in leadership roles. Women radiologists have less academic literature measures when compared with their male counterparts at all three ranks. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Women's Careers in Biomedical Sciences: Implications for the Economy, Scientific Discovery, and Women's Health Open PDF
(2017)
Plank-Bazinet, Jennifer L.
;
Heggeness, Misty L.
;
Lund, P. Kay
;
Clayton, Janine Austin
While women have been well represented in medical school and biomedical doctoral degree programs, they do not comprise half of academic medicine faculty positions. Furthermore, there is a significant paucity of women in academic medicine leadership positions, as evidenced by the fact that only 16% of dean positions at United States Medical schools are filled by women. In this commentary, the authors review the state of women in academic medicine and argue that increased representation of women in the academic workforce will lead to economic gains, increased scientific discovery, and improvements to women's health.
Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine Open PDF
(2024)
Chaudron, Linda H.
;
Dandar, Valerie
;
Lautenberger, Diana
;
Bunton, Sarah A.
;
Gordon, Lynn K.
Purpose: Research about academic medicine women faculty has focused on comparisons of men and women or specific groups who achieved leadership. To better understand the low percentages of women in academic medicine leadership, attention should be paid to the career continuum within genders. Study findings will inform policies and programs to support women in building careers and acquiring leadership positions. Materials and Methods: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey data are used to describe and compare women assistant, associate and full professors' perceptions of (1) career development and advancement opportunities, and (2) a culture and climate that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specific similarities and differences with men are highlighted. Results: Fifty-nine percent of women respondents were assistant, 25% associate, and 16% full professors. Associate professors of both genders were the least satisfied on the main measures. Women were less satisfied than men at each career stage across the majority of variables. Among women, fewer than half of full and associate professors, and 52% of assistant professors believe they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. While the majority at all ranks (69%-75%) report feeling respected in the workplace, among those who did not, the highest percentage of disrespect based on gender was among associate professors. Conclusions: The perceptions of >7,500 academic medicine women faculty, representing different generations and ranks, underscore the need to broadly address gender inequity and sexism throughout the career continuum. It identifies the mid-career stage as a challenging experience for both men and women. Women, especially at the associate professor rank, remain a critically dissatisfied and underresourced group that is at risk for underutilization and potentially exit from academic medicine. All ranks of women need career development and equitable policies to support their sense of belonging and career advancement.
Scholarly Productivity Among Academic Foot and Ankle Surgeons Affiliated With US Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Residency and Fellowship Training Programs Open PDF
(2021)
Casciato, Dominick J.
;
Cravey, Kimberly S.
;
Barron, Ian M.
Foot and ankle surgeons practicing within academic medicine balance clinical or surgical training, course instruction, administrative duties, and research. Along with clinical skills and patient volume, promotion within academia often relies on scholarly productivity. Previous research across specialties described this productivity using variables including publications, citations, and the h-index, a scale that quantifies the productivity and citation impact of published works, among academic ranks. As no studies examine the scholarly impact of foot and ankle surgeons with academic appointments, this study aimed to analyze the productivity and gender differences present in this specialty. A systematic review of academic-affiliated foot and ankle surgery residencies and fellowships was performed; and faculty members were screened for sex, academic rank, publication history, citations, h-index, and years in practice. Among 234 programs reviewed, 44 programs allowed for the analysis of 106 practitioners with an academic rank eligible for analysis. Overall, 78.3% of practitioners were male with the most common rank being assistant professor. Men published more documents and maintained higher citations as well as longer years in practice, and this was significant (p < .05). A significant difference was exhibited among all academic ranks (p ≤ .001). Multivariate regression revealed the publication history and years in practice are strongly correlated with the h-index of providers (p ≤ .001). Foot and ankle surgeons practicing in an academic setting may use the results of this study to gauge their productivity and identify benchmarks that similar providers have met at varying academic ranks.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results