PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USASubject: search.filters.subject.Academic Publishing

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first-author gender disparities between fields Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Mas-Bleda, A.
    Current attempts to address the shortfall of female researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have not yet succeeded, despite other academic subjects having female majorities. This article investigates the extent to which gender disparities are subject-wide or nation-specific by a first-author gender comparison of 30 million articles from all 27 Scopus broad fields within the 31 countries with the most Scopus-indexed articles 2014–2018. The results show overall and geocultural patterns as well as individual national differences. Almost half of the subjects were always more male (seven; e.g., Mathematics) or always more female (six; e.g., Immunology & Microbiology) than the national average. A strong overall trend (Spearman correlation 0.546) is for countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored research to also have larger differences in gender disparities between fields (correlation 0.314 for gender ratios). This confirms the international gender equality paradox previously found for degree subject choices: Increased gender equality overall associates with moderately greater gender differentiation between subjects. This is consistent with previous United States-based claims that gender differences in academic careers are partly due to (socially constrained) gender differences in personal preferences. Radical solutions may therefore be needed for some STEM subjects to overcome gender disparities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Amalia Mas-Bleda. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Author gender differences in psychology citation impact 1996–2018 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    Academic psychology in the USA is a gender success story in terms of overturning its early male dominance but there are still relatively few senior female psychology researchers. To assess whether there are gender differences in citation impact that might help to explain either of these trends, this study investigates psychology articles since 1996. Seven out of eight Scopus psychology categories had a majority of female first-authored journal articles by 2018. From regression analyses of first and last author gender and team size, female first authors associate with a slightly higher average citation impact, but extra authors have a 10 times stronger association with higher average citation impact. Last author gender has little association with citation impact. Female first authors are more likely to be in larger teams and if team size is attributed to the first author's work, then their apparent influence of female first authors on citation impact doubles. While gender differences in average citation impact are too small to account for gender-related trends in academic psychology, they warn that male-dominated citation-based ranking lists of psychologists do not reflect the state of psychology research today. © 2019 International Union of Psychological Science
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.