PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
6 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Women's Footprint in Anti-Doping Sciences: A Bibliometric Approach to Research Impact Open PDF(2022) ;Kiss, Anna ;Lakner, Zoltán ;Soós, SándorPetróczi, AndreaBibliometrics, via the exploitation of large-scale publication data, is a facile approach to explore gender-related trends, especially gender equality in academic publishing and authorship. For the first time, this study aims to investigate the gender-related trends in anti-doping sciences to (1) explore the relational structure of gender aspects of authorial, topical, and methodological features, (2) give recognition to women's contribution to anti-doping research, and (3) identify unique "gendered" potentials for advancing anti-doping research. To deliver on these aims, we employed bibliometric tools to publication records in anti-doping. After constructing a database containing academic publications on any aspect of anti-doping with at least one woman among the authors, we applied state-of-the-art methods from bibliometric science mapping and network analysis. The Lotka distribution model showed that the anti-doping research is a closed community with only 70 authors appearing more than once. Male authors being the majority (66.2%), women are under-represented in this field. The most important authorship position in the academic articles is mainly occupied by men, publications with male corresponding authors were in 774 out of 991 anti-doping related papers. The close connection of the top twenty most influential authors, men and women, to the World Anti-Doping Agency in some professional capacity suggest that the Agency have an influence on the anti-doping research beyond directly providing funding. In terms of geographical regions, publications with female authors were dominated anti-doping research in Italy, Romania, and Spain. In research networks to date, women have outperformed male authors in information centrality, which means that women in anti-doping research have had higher level of control over the information flow in the field than their male counterparts. The results of this study confirm the potential of bibliometric approach in the identification of emerging research topics and quantifying gender differentiation in the field of anti-doping. Due to their higher information centrality, women are better positioned for problem-focused multidisciplinary research both within anti-doping community, and with researchers in cognate fields. Bibliometric analyses have proved to be a powerful tool for monitoring and advancing anti-doping research impact via identifying new avenues for multidisciplinary work, better gender representation, and diversity.Item type:Publication, Underrepresentation of Women on Radiology Editorial Boards. Open PDF(2019) ;Jalilianhasanpour, Rozita ;Charkhchi, Paniz ;Mirbolouk, MohammadhassanYousem, David M.PURPOSE: Women in radiology are known to be underrepresented in academic leadership positions. We sought to determine if women are appropriately represented on editorial boards and editor-in-chief positions compared with their authorship contributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the first and senior authorship male versus female gender breakdown of manuscripts published in nine high-impact American radiology journals 1 month per year from 2002 to 2017. We looked at the gender of the first authors, senior authors, editorial board members, and editors-in-chief of these journals to see if there was a gender discrepancy. RESULTS: We assessed 3,702 first authors, 3,702 senior authors, and 9,400 editorial board members. Women were underrepresented on the editorial boards compared with their first-authored manuscript contribution in our sample of articles from every journal for every year and were underrepresented compared with their senior-authored manuscript contributions in 119 of 139 (85.6%) journal-years. The percentage of women as first authors (mean = 29.3 ± 9.9), senior authors (mean = 20.7 ± 8.1), and editorial board members (mean = 13.4 ± 6.5) showed major differences (P < .001). This gap did not significantly narrow over the 16 years of study. Notably, there was no woman as editor-in-chief for any of the journal-years. CONCLUSION: There is a gender gap in the composition of editorial boards in radiology compared with authorship contributions by women. Given the implications of editorial board assignment and editorship on women's academic advancement, journals may wish to consider strategies that will narrow the gap.Item type:Publication, Addressing gender inequality in science: The multifaceted challenge of assessing impact Open PDF(2017) ;Schmidt, E.K.Cacace, M.The analysis of the reasons behind the persistent under-representation of women in senior positions in science is well-developed. In contrast, the assessment of the impact of policies addressing the problem suffers from a lack of evidence and an oversimplification of approaches. Based on the assessment of 125 programs for gender equality implemented in research organizations in Europe, North America, and Australia, we argue that holistic approaches and multidimensional frames of reference are needed for impact assessment, also to improve program design and policy. Our analysis shows that the problem of gender inequality is rooted in so many and interrelated factors that program impact assessment has to be multidimensional and complex. Having a conceptual approach grounded in the notion of complexity as a point of departure, the article presents an innovative impact assessment tool, pointing to effective ways to assess the impact of gender equality programs. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.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, A 50-year analysis of gender differences in United States authorship of original research articles in two major anesthesiology journals Open PDF(2019) ;Pagel, P.S. ;Freed, J.K.Lien, C.A.Underrepresentation of women in academic medicine is strongly linked to differences in men’s and women’s scholarship and has been shown to substantially reduce the overall quality of research. An authorship “gender gap” exists in most medical specialties, but differences in research article authorship have only been recently suggested in anesthesiology. We analyzed authorship of US research articles published in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia and Analgesia (journals that publish two-thirds of all anesthesiology-related articles) from 1967 to 2017 to test the hypothesis that publication of anesthesiology research articles by women authors has progressively increased over time along with greater involvement in first, last, and corresponding author roles. Research articles appearing in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia and Analgesia in 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997, 2007, and 2017 were identified. The corresponding author was used to determine the country of origin of each article; only articles originating from the US were included in the analysis. Each author’s gender was determined by inspection of the first name and verified using the author’s institutional website or an internet search if necessary. First, last, and corresponding authors as well as co-authors were noted for each article. Federal grant support was also identified if present. Gender was identified in 98.2% of authors. A total of 1350 research articles with 6165 authors (1319 female; 21.4%) originated from the US. The percentage of women authors increased in a time-dependent manner in Anesthesiology from 6.2% in 1967 to 31.3% in 2017. The proportion of women who were first, last, and corresponding authors increased from 5.1%, 8.9%, and 2.5%, respectively, in 1967 to 37.0%, 22.2%, and 25.9% in 2017, respectively. The number of women co-authors per article also increased over time. Similar results were observed in Anesthesia and Analgesia. The percentage of articles that included at least one woman rose progressively over time in both journals (e.g., Anesthesiology, 12.6% in 1967 versus 90.7% in 2017). Articles published in Anesthesiology were more likely to be supported by a federal grant than those in Anesthesia and Analgesia. The percentage of women first authors of US research articles in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia and Analgesia increased from 1967 to 2017 and approaches the proportion who currently hold academic appointments. Women’s last and corresponding authorship also increased during the past 50 years, but women continue to be relatively underrepresented in these roles. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.Item type:Publication, Underrepresentation of women in the economics profession more pronounced in the United States compared to heterogeneous Europe Open PDF(2022) ;Auriol, E. ;Friebel, G. ;Weinberger, A.Wilhelm, S.Based on a dataset that we collected from the top research institutions in economics around the globe (including universities, business schools, and other organizations, such as central banks), we document the underrepresentation of women in economics. For the 238 universities and business schools in the sample, women hold 25% of senior-level positions (full professor or associate professor) and 37% of junior-level positions. In the 82 US universities and business schools, the figures are 20% on the senior level and 32% on the entry level, while in the 122 European institutions, the numbers are 27% and 38%, respectively, with some heterogeneity across countries. The numbers also show that the highest-ranking institutions (in terms of research output) have fewer women in senior positions. Moreover, in the United States, this effect is even present on the junior level. The "leaky pipeline"may hence begin earlier than oftentimes assumed and is even more of an issue in the highly integrated market of the United States. In Europe, an institution ranked 100 places higher has 3 percentage points fewer women in senior positions, but in the United States, it is almost 5 percentage points. © 2022 the Author(s).