PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11

Perspectives and needs of neonatology division directors regarding gender equity Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024-10-30)
Machut, Kerri Z.
;
Owens, Lisa
;
Gadek, Lauren
;
Kataria-Hale, Jasmeet
;
Lingappan, Krithika
Gender inequities in pediatrics are extensively documented despite women predominating the workforce. As a landscape assessment of gender equity in university-based neonatology divisions in the United States, we collected gender equity measures from academic neonatology division directors; 83% (n = 106) participated. The majority recognized addressing gender inequity was a middle-to-top priority, though they reported minimal gender inequities in their division. Most division directors are men and a higher proportion of full professors are men, but they reported minimal differences in time to promotion, leadership positions, and awards. Half of centers analyzed compensation by gender; all reported no gender difference. The existence of gender-equity-promoting strategies was variable and uncertain by many directors. They reported lack of bandwidth, personnel, and resources as the largest barriers to tracking and addressing gender inequities. These perceived minimal gender inequities diverge from published objective data and highlight the need to track and report metrics accurately and systematically.
Academic Surgical Oncologists’ Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation Open PDF
(2018)
Nguyen, V.
;
Marmor, R.A.
;
Ramamoorthy, S.L.
;
Blair, S.L.
;
Clary, B.M.
Background: A scholar’s h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. Results: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). Conclusions: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers. © 2018, Society of Surgical Oncology.
The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research Open PDF
(Palgrave, 2022)
Love, Hannah B.
;
Stephens, Alyssa
;
Fosdick, Bailey K.
;
Tofany, Elizabeth
;
Fisher, Ellen R.
Multiple studies from the literature suggest that a high proportion of women on scientific teams contributes to successful team collaboration, but how the proportion of women impacts team success and why this is the case, is not well understood. One perspective suggests that having a high proportion of women matters because women tend to have greater social sensitivity and promote even turn-taking in meetings. Other studies have found women are more likely to collaborate and are more democratic. Both explanations suggest that women team members fundamentally change team functioning through the way they interact. Yet, most previous studies of gender on scientific teams have relied heavily on bibliometric data, which focuses on the prevalence of women team members rather than how they act and interact throughout the scientific process. In this study, we explore gender diversity in scientific teams using various types of relational data to investigate how women impact team interactions. This study focuses on 12 interdisciplinary university scientific teams that were part of an institutional team science program from 2015 to 2020 aimed at cultivating, integrating, and translating scientific expertise. The program included multiple forms of evaluation, including participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and surveys at multiple time points. Using social network analysis, this article tested five hypotheses about the role of women on university-based scientific teams. The hypotheses were based on three premises previously established in the literature. Our analyses revealed that only one of the five hypotheses regarding gender roles on teams was supported by our data. These findings suggest that scientific teams may create ingroups, when an underrepresented identity is included instead of excluded in the outgroup, for women in academia. This finding does not align with the current paradigm and the research on the impact of gender diversity on teams. Future research to determine if high-functioning scientific teams disrupt rather than reproduce existing hierarchies and gendered patterns of interactions could create an opportunity to accelerate the advancement of knowledge while promoting a just and equitable culture and profession.
Characterizing the Impact of Women in Academic IR: A 12-Year Analysis Open PDF
(2018)
Xiao, N.
;
Oliveira, D.F.M.
;
Gupta, R.
Purpose: To determine the representation of female interventional radiology (IR) investigators and elucidate possible gender-specific disparities. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 4,884 original, peer-reviewed articles from 2006–2017 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for first and senior author gender, citations, and grants. Results: We found that 84% of first authors and 91.4% of senior authors were male (P <.01). No significant difference was observed versus expected in terms of author gender collaboration combinations (P = 1.00). Each year reflected a 0.3%–0.4% increase in articles published by women (first author: B-value: 0.3, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.4, P =.01). No difference was observed in citations or grants received between genders. Female authors received increasing citations and grants each year (citations: first author: B-value: 0.24, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.16, P =.15; grants: B-value: 0.88, P =.02). Conclusions: Women are equally as productive as men as determined by metrics such as number of publications, citations, and grants and are proportionally represented in the literature. No data indicating collaborative or citation/grant discrimination were observed, suggesting that the academic IR community is inclusive of its female constituents and equally respects their research contributions. Based on the statistically significant increases in female authorship observed in this 12-year study, this article reports encouraging trends for the future of women in interventional radiology. © 2018 SIR
Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees
(bioRxiv, 2023)
Woitowich, Nicole C.
;
Hengel, Sarah R.
;
Solis, Christopher
;
Vilgalys, Tauras P.
;
Babdor, Joel
Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to five years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ∼230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ∼$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ∼89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the US.
Observable and unobservable causes of the gender gap in S&T funding for young researchers Open PDF
(2023)
Suarez, D
;
Fiorentin, F
;
Pereira, M
The objective of this paper is to study the relationship between academic performance, gender, and science and technology grants. The empirical analysis is based on the Argentinean Fund for Scientific and Technological Research 'Scientific and Technological Research Projects' (FONCYT-PICT). The methodology is based on a multivariate decomposition for non-linear response models, an extension of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. Results confirm the presence of a gender gap. Women have lower probabilities of being awarded with funds than men, even when academic trajectories are alike. Results show that even if the productivity gap is closed, men's and women's trajectories are differently valued against women, and this negatively impacts their probability of being awarded. Therefore, even if women manage to publish more and-somehow-be more cited, the gap will persist. Explicit public policy measures are required to close the current gap and stop reproducing it.
Academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology power list Open PDF
(2022)
Shemesh, Rachel
;
Tiosano, Alon
;
Barayev, Edward
;
Zloczower, Elchanan
;
Gershoni, Assaf
OBJECTIVE: To review the academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology '2020 Power List'. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the academic profiles, achievements, and bibliometric profiles of all ophthalmologists listed in the 'Power List of 2020', regarded as the most influential figures in ophthalmology today, were analysed. RESULTS: Ninety-five ophthalmologists were studied, after excluding 10 non-ophthalmologist figures that are also listed. Their mean age is 63 ± 11.7 years, with a strong male predominance (84.2%, n = 80 males, P < 0.001). All have a medical doctorate degree, and 31% (n = 29) have a Philosophy Doctor (PhD) degree. Fifty-three percent (n = 51) are graduates of medical schools in the United States (US). However, non-US ophthalmologists have a higher percentage of PhD degrees (41%, 18/44) vs. US ophthalmologists (22%, 11/51, P = 0.069), and also a longer duration of post-residency training (5.8 ± 3.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 years, P < 0.001). The most common subspecialty was cataract and anterior segment surgery (42%, n = 40). The mean and standard deviation of the total number of papers published by ophthalmologists were 307.4 ± 226.3, with a mean citation record of 11,835.7 ± 13,330.5, and a mean h-index of 46.9 ± 27.9. CONCLUSIONS: The ophthalmologists listed on the 'Power List of 2020' are leaders with high accomplishments and an established interest in research evidenced by a high record of publications and an exceptional bibliometric profile. The list contains more US figures with a gender disparity, demonstrating a greater difficulty for international ophthalmologists, especially women, in achieving this high level of recognition.
Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Open PDF
(2019)
Roper, Rachel L.
The percentage of women employed in professional scientific positions has been low but is increasing over time. The U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have both implemented programs to improve women's participation in science, and many universities and companies have diversity and equity programs. While most faculty and scientists believe that they are fair and unbiased, numerous well-designed studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals show that gender bias in sciences and medicine is widespread and persistent today in both faculty and students. Recent studies show that gender bias affects student grading, professional hiring, mentoring, tenure, promotion, respect, grant proposal success, and pay. In addition, sexual harassment remains a significant barrier. Fortunately, several studies provide evidence that programs that raise conscious awareness of gender bias can improve equity in science, and there are a number of recommendations and strategies for improving the participation of women.
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.
Disparity in Sex of Surgical Journal Author Contributions Open PDF
(2021)
Farmer, Diana
;
Young, Lindsey
Surgery has historically been a male-dominated field, despite growing efforts to increase female admittance and resolve sex disparity in medicine.1 Since 1980, the number of women admitted to medical school has increased significantly, but still only 20% of leadership positions are held by women.2 Studies on female representation in medicine have shown that female publication contributions as first or last author are significantly lower than the percentage of female surgeons in the workplace.1,2 In their manuscript, “Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials,”3 the American College of Surgeons demonstrates that female authorship contributions significantly lag behind male counterparts despite upward trends in female authorship over the last 3 decades.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results