PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USASubject: search.filters.subject.Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Women in the Top 100 Most Influential Arthroplasty Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-04)
    Payne, Camryn S.
    ;
    Boddu, Sayi P.
    ;
    Beckett, Nathan C.
    ;
    Cancio-Bello, Alexandra M.
    ;
    Bingham, Joshua S.
    BACKGROUND: Women account for 2% of arthroplasty surgeons in the United States. It is important to understand how women contribute to the literature in the field of arthroplasty currently. We compared the proportion of first, middle, and senior authorship by women in the top 100 most-cited hip and knee arthroplasty studies published between 2010 and 2024 to the national proportion of women hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons and evaluated the H-indices of authors by gender. METHODS: The literature search was performed on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database. Once 100 studies met the inclusion criteria, those that did not originate from the United States or whose author first names were not included were excluded. The author's gender was determined by first name. The Scopus author database was used to determine the H-index for first and senior authors. RESULTS: There were 91 papers that met the criteria. These papers were produced by a total of 458 authors, of whom 13.7% were women. There were six (7.4%) of 81 unique first authors, 50 (15.8%) of 315 middle authors, and seven (11.3%) of 62 unique senior authors who were women. Women had lower average H-indices than men. CONCLUSIONS: Women's contributions to the most influential hip and knee arthroplasty articles are much higher than predicted given their underrepresentation in the field, indicating the substantial value they add to leading arthroplasty research. Despite this, disparities exist for women in authorship rank and H-index. These disparities may be mitigated by intentionally fostering greater support for women throughout all phases of orthopaedic surgery training to improve opportunities for impactful research and career advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is the gender gap closing in otolaryngology subspecialties? An analysis of research productivity Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Okafor, S.
    ;
    Tibbetts, K.
    ;
    Shah, G.
    ;
    Tillman, B.
    ;
    Agan, A.
    Objective: The proportion of women specializing in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (Oto–HNS) and seeking fellowship training has steadily increased over the last several years. In academic Oto–HNS, gender differences exist in research productivity, scholarly impact, and funding. This study aims to evaluate gender differences in academic productivity between otolaryngologists in early, mid-, and later careers stages and within various subspecialties. Methods: Departmental websites for all Oto–HNS residency programs were accessed, and data including gender, academic rank, and fellowship training/subspecialty field was collected. Bibliometric data including h-index, publication years, number of citations, documents, and coauthors was obtained from the Scopus database. Career groups were defined as early (1–5 years), mid- (6–15 years), and later (16+ years). Continuous data was compared using the t test. Results: Data was collected on 1,754 academic otolaryngologists (412 women, 1,342 men). Overall, men exhibited significantly higher h-indices, number of documents, citations, and coauthors and actively published for more years compared to women (P < 0.0001 for all variables). Similar trends persisted across all subspecialties. When authors were broken down into career groups, women and men showed similar research productivity across all career groups in the subspecialties of otology, facial plastics, and rhinology; however, in head and neck, laryngology, and pediatrics, women continued to lag behind men. Conclusion: This study suggests that female otolaryngologists within certain subspecialties are keeping pace with their male counterparts in publication productivity in the early career time frame. This represents a change from prior studies which have shown women to be less productive in the early career period. Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 130:1144–1150, 2020. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF 
    (2018)
    O'Connor, Erin E.
    ;
    Chen, Pauline
    ;
    Weston, Brian
    ;
    Anderson, Redmond
    ;
    Zeffiro, Timothy
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Radiology Publication Productivity: An Examination of Academic Faculty From Four Health Systems in the United States Open PDF 
    (2017)
    McDonald, J.S.
    ;
    McDonald, R.J.
    ;
    Davenport, M.S.
    ;
    Jaffe, T.A.
    ;
    Cook, T.S.
    Objectives To compare male and female radiology faculty publication productivity metrics at four major academic centers. Materials and Methods All Radiology Department faculty members at four academic medical centers from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015, were included. Publication metrics including total number of manuscripts published; h- and m-indices; number of publications where faculty member was listed as first, last, or sole author; whether a woman was listed as one of the first five coauthors; and year of first publication were retrieved from Scopus. Publication metrics were compared between genders using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ2 tests. Results A total of 711 faculty members (519 male, 192 [27%] female members) were identified. Male faculty had a significantly higher number of total publications (median 54 versus 24, P &lt;.0001), publications per year (median 2.9 versus 1.6, P &lt;.0001), and h- (median 17 versus 10, P &lt;.0001) and m-indices (median 0.83 versus 0.60, P &lt;.0001) than female faculty. Male faculty had a significantly higher percentage of single author (median 1% versus 0%, P =.0014) and last author (median 16% versus 11%, P &lt;.0001) publications than female faculty. Female faculty had a significantly higher percentage of first author publications (21% versus 17%, P =.0025) and were significantly more likely to have another woman in their first five coauthor list (70% versus 45%, P &lt;.0001) than male faculty. Conclusions Large differences exist between female and male faculty in total publications; h- and m-indices; publications per year; number of first, single, last author papers; and percentage of faculty that have a female coauthor in their top five coauthor lists. © 2017 American College of Radiology
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Female Plastic Surgery Resident Authorship - Signs of Changing Times? Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Maisner, R.S.
    ;
    Cadwell, J.B.
    ;
    Mansukhani, P.A.
    ;
    Naides, A.
    ;
    Siniakowicz, C.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender discrepancies exist in academia for leadership positions, advancement opportunities, and research. As of 2019, the ratio of total male-to-female attending plastic and reconstructive surgeons was 4.8:1. However, the ratio of male-to-female residents in integrated plastic surgery programs fell to 1.3:1, indicating rising female representation. With more balanced gender distributions of residents, the authors sought to determine whether this translates to greater equality of opportunities and achievements. Specifically, this study compares the academic productivity of male and female integrated plastic surgery residents. METHODS: A list of integrated plastic surgery residency programs was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and ranked by reputation using the Doximity Residency Navigator. Integrated plastic surgery residents from 2019 to 2020 were identified via program websites and social media accounts. Works published during residency were identified through PubMed and Scopus from July 1 of each resident's intern year through August 10, 2020. Demographic variables for residents, including training class and medical school, as well as for programs, including geographic region, Doximity ranking, and medical school affiliation, were collected. Medical schools were ranked according to US News by research. Research productivity was assessed through the number of total research articles with authorship position (first, second, or last), the number of articles published in plastic surgery journals with the highest impact factors (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal), and H-indices. Chi-Squared tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to make comparisons between male and female residents (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In total, 931 residents in 81 integrated plastic surgery programs were identified, including 534 (57.4%) male and 397 (42.6%) female residents. There were no differences between male and female residents in terms of training year or program geography. Female residents were more likely to come from a top-50 medical school than males (54.7% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in gender distribution of residents from top-20 programs or programs affiliated with a top-20 medical school. The median (IQR) number of publications in total, and for each gender, was 3 (1-6). There was no difference in the number of total publications by training year by gender, besides the second-year resident class where male residents had a median (IQR) of 2 (1-4) compared to 1 (0-3) (p = 0.028). Male and female residents did not differ with regards to authorship position or proportion of times publishing in top journals. The distribution of H-indices for male residents was slightly higher than female residents (p = 0.003), but the median (IQR) was the same at 3 (1-5). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, male and female integrated plastic surgery residents have similar levels of academic productivity. This suggests that female representation is slowly increasing along the pipeline in academia, representing a paradigm shift from previous trends of gender inequality in plastic surgery. © 2021 Association of Program Directors in Surgery
  • Item type:Publication,
    National Institutes of Health: Gender Differences in Radiology Funding Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Jutras, M.
    ;
    Malekafzali, L.
    ;
    Jung, S.
    ;
    Das, P.
    ;
    Qamar, S.R.
    Rationale and Objective: Radiology has traditionally remained one of the most male-dominated specialties, although a higher proportion of women are now beginning to occupy roles as academic radiologists than their male counterparts. The present study investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding within Diagnostic Radiology stratified by gender, and correlated with measures of academic output, including h-index. Materials and Methods: Data on funding was obtained from the online NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results for fiscal years 2016–2019, and information regarding each Principal Investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and departmental websites. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on collected data for statistical comparison of continuous variables. Results: Of the 2929 grants included in this analysis, 1789 (61.07%) were awarded to male PIs and 1140 (38.9%) to female PIs. Among PIs holding a PhD degree, male PIs had a higher mean grant amount ($619,807.00) compared to female PIs ($158,486.00). Conclusion: Although female representation within academic radiology has been increasing, the mean NIH grants awarded to women is less than that awarded to men. Reasons for this are numerous and may include differential prioritization of career objectives among men and women, although such rationalization is inevitably speculative in nature. Significant gender differences in NIH funding were seen at the PhD level, and the strongest correlation between NIH funding and academic output was observed for the h-index of female PIs. These results underscore the fact that women are ostensibly being held to a higher academic standard than men in terms of funding decisions. © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Prevalence and Trends in Otology and Neurotology Publications Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Schauwecker, N.
    ;
    Kaplan, A.
    ;
    Hunter, J.B.
    Objective:To assess otology and neurotology authorship by gender, subject, and country of origin from 2000 to 2019.Study Design:Retrospective review of otology and neurotology publications in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 from 10 prominent journals within otolaryngology.Main Outcome Measures:Demographics for first through third and final authors, including gender, degree, coauthorship, as well as number of authors, subject matter, and region of origin for each publication.Results:A total of 4,411 neurotology articles published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 were analyzed. During the study period, the proportion of female authors increased from 22.3% in 2000 to 33.9% in 2019 (p<0.0001). However, authorship position analysis demonstrated no increase in final female authorship (22.5% in 2019, from 19.4% in 2000, p=0.112). Geographic region analysis demonstrated a similar overall global trend toward an increase in female authors. When considering author gender by position, North America, the Middle East, and Africa failed to demonstrate significant increasing trends for female final authors. Female final authors were also significantly less likely to have medical degrees than final male authors, (37.4% versus 78.6%, respectfully, p=<0.0001). Finally, women published more often within the subjects of pediatrics and audiology (46.5% and 37.3% of final authors, p<0.0001).Conclusions:Female authorship in otology and neurotology has increased globally. With the predominant number of articles originating from North America, and articles originating from North America failing to demonstrate an increase in female final authorship, overall, final female authorship did not change during the study period.Professional Practice Gap and Educational Need:There is no comprehensive study exploring gender distribution within only the specialty of otology and neurotology. While it is known that more women are becoming otolaryngologists, it is unknown if this increase is reflected in otology and neurotology publications, domestically and internationally.Learning Objective:To understand if gender biases and/or differences exist within otology and neurotology publications.Desired Result:Identify trends in otology and neurotology publications to address particular barriers to female publication within the field. © 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Laryngology Research and Publishing Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Pasick, Luke J.
    ;
    Yeakel, Heather
    ;
    Sataloff, Robert T.
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex bias in laryngology research and publishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published in 2019 in seven mainstream otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Original manuscripts were included. Study type (medical, speech-language pathology, basic science, or pedagogy), subject sex, ≥50% sex-matching (SM≥50), sex-based analysis, and bibliometric data including author sex were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1619 publications reviewed, 259 patient-centered original laryngology studies were included, totaling 7,130,991 subjects (3,411,741 [47.8%] male; 3,718,694 [52.1%] female; 556 [0.0%] unreported). 29 studies included subjects of a single sex and 14 did not report sex. 114 (44%) studies met SM≥50, and 95 (37%) used sex-based analysis; no differences were found among study types or location. Sex-based analysis was used less in single-institution (33%) than database studies (62%, P = 0.01). No difference in SM≥50 was found among single or multi-institution, or database. There were 1340 total authors (578 [43%] female). First, corresponding, and senior authors were 47%, 39%, and 35% female, respectively. Studies that had female first and/or senior authors did not differ in rates of SM≥50 or sex-based analysis or mean enrollment of females compared to studies with male first and senior authors. The proportion of female physician first and senior authors did not differ from the proportion of female Association of American Medical Colleges otolaryngology faculty, but was non-significantly smaller than the proportion of female laryngology fellows at four academic institutions. CONCLUSION: Laryngology research exhibits sex bias in subject enrollment and sex-based analysis. Female authorship was representative of national demographics and author sex did not influence the rate of sex bias.
  • 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.