PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.USAViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.PhD Level

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 17
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Llorens, Anaïs
    ;
    Tzovara, Athina
    ;
    Bellier, Ludovic
    ;
    Bhaya-Grossman, Ilina
    ;
    Bidet-Caulet, Aurélie
    Despite increased awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia and a growing number of initiatives to address issues of diversity, change is slow, and inequalities remain. A major source of inequity is gender bias, which has a substantial negative impact on the careers, work-life balance, and mental health of underrepresented groups in science. Here, we argue that gender bias is not a single problem but manifests as a collection of distinct issues that impact researchers’ lives. We disentangle these facets and propose concrete solutions that can be adopted by individuals, academic institutions, and society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ivory tower in MD/PhD programmes: sticky floor, broken ladder and glass ceiling Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Lail, Achint
    ;
    Ding, Jeffrey
    ;
    Leyva, Brayden K.
    ;
    Jalal, Sabeena
    ;
    Nakae, Sunny
    OBJECTIVE: Achieving gender equity in academic medicine is not only a matter of social justice but also necessary in promoting an innovative and productive academic community. The purpose of this study was to assess gender distribution in dual MD/PhD academic programme faculty members across North America. METHODS: Academic metrics were analysed to quantify the relative career success of academic faculty members in MD/PhD programmes. Measured parameters included academic and leadership ranks along with nominal research factors such as peer-reviewed research publications, H-index, citation number and years of active research. RESULTS: Χ² analysis revealed a statistically significant (p<0.0001, χ²=114.5) difference in the gender distribution of faculty and leadership across North American MD/PhD programmes. Men held 74.2% of full professor positions, 64% of associate professor positions, 59.4% of assistant professor positions and 62.8% of lecturer positions. Moreover, men occupied a larger share of faculty leadership roles with a statistically significant disparity across all ranks (p<0.001, χ²=20.4). A higher proportion of men held positions as department chairs (79.6%), vice chairs (69.1%) and programme leads (69.4%). CONCLUSION: Gender disparity was prevalent in the MD/PhD programmes throughout North America with women achieving a lower degree of professional stature than men. Ultimately, steps must be taken to support women faculty to afford them better opportunities for academic and professional advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kim, Lanu
    ;
    Smith, Daniel Scott
    ;
    Hofstra, Bas
    ;
    McFarland, Daniel A.
    Women and men often contribute differently to research knowledge. Do differences in these contributions partially explain disparities in academic career outcomes? We explore this by looking at how gender is embodied in research language, and then ascertain whether the adoption of more gendered research language affects career outcomes beyond the researcher's attributes. We identify different forms of gendered knowledge—gender referents (explicit references to sex and gender) and gender-associated terms (words that are implicitly associated with women or men researchers)—by applying natural language processing techniques to nearly one million doctoral dissertations published in the United States between 1980 and 2010. We then determine whether employing gender referents and gender-associated terms affects the course of PhDs’ ensuing careers. We find women researchers have lower chances of securing academic positions than men in every field; explicit references to women as research subjects are modestly rewarded in comparison to references to men; and more career opportunities are afforded to research knowledge associated with men. These results suggest that academia is slowly correcting the traditional and explicit bias of studying men at the exclusion of women. Still, there remains a stronger implicit bias against knowledge associated with women scholars. We discuss relative differences between humanities and social sciences versus natural sciences, technology, engineering, and math, as well as potential treatments for offsetting bias in those fields.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective Open PDF 
    (2006)
    Jagsi, Reshma
    ;
    Guancial, Elizabeth A.
    ;
    Worobey, Cynthia Cooper
    ;
    Henault, Lori E.
    ;
    Chang, Yuchiao
    BACKGROUND: Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. METHODS: Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. RESULTS: The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Children and the Productivity of Academic Women
    (Ohio State University Press, 1977)
    Hamovitch, William
    ;
    Morgenstern, Richard D.
    This study examines the relationship between child rearing and the scholarly productivity of women in academia. Using, first, recent data collected by the Carnegie-American Council on Education and a multivariate statistical analysis, we find that, overall: (1) women faculty publish somewhat less than men; and (2) there is no evidence that child rearing is related to the number of publications of academic women. Further, using newly secured data we compared women academics who are considered "outstanding" by their peers with "other" women academics, and found no evidence that childrearing decreases the probability of a woman academics, being in the "outstanding," high status group.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Career Levels and Their Effect on Scholarly Output and Impact of Women Scientists Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Halevi, G.
    ;
    Bar-Ilan, J.
    In this article we examined the scholarly output and impact of 81 women scientist at the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Mount Sinai. The group was divided into three career level sub-groups based on the first year of publication of each scientist. We examined the number of publications, citations, readership and social media attention per each group. Our findings show that although senior faculty have more publications and overall citations, junior faculty receive more citations and more readership per paper. We also found that different career level faculty members receive different social media mentions. Mid-career faculty see more tweets that mention their research while senior faculty get more likes, shares and clicks via Facebook. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in rates of publishing and inclusion in scientific-review processes. Open PDF 
    (Educational Publishing Foundation, 2021)
    Willis, Malachi
    ;
    Bridges, Ana J.
    ;
    Jozkowski, Kristen N.
    Sexism and racism in academia have contributed to women and people of color being underrepresented at increasing levels of the academic hierarchy. We investigated whether people with socially marginalized identities experience disparities regarding rates of publishing and inclusion in the scientific-review process. Using a sample of academics in psychology departments at research-focused universities in the United States (<i>n</i> = 885), we found gender disparities for PhD holders and racial/ethnic disparities for graduate students. Specifically, female PhD holders and graduate students of color reported fewer publications and were less likely to be included in the scientific-review process compared with male PhD holders and White graduate students, respectively. Differences in research activity by gender and race/ethnicity in a contemporary sample of psychologists reflected a 'leaky pipeline' that persists in psychology departments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Career Progression and Research Productivity of Women in Academic Cardiothoracic Surgery Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Williams, Kiah M.
    ;
    Wang, Hanjay
    ;
    Bajaj, Simar S.
    ;
    Hironaka, Camille E.
    ;
    Kasinpila, Patpilai
    BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to delineate career progression and research productivity of women practicing cardiothoracic surgery in the academic setting. METHODS: Cardiothoracic surgeons at the 79 accredited US cardiothoracic surgery training programs in 2020 were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Data regarding subspecialization, training, practice history, and publications were gathered from public sources including department websites, CTSNet, and Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 1065 surgeons (51.3% cardiac, 32.1% thoracic, 16.6% congenital) were identified. Women accounted for 10.6% (113) of the population (7.9% of cardiac, 15.5% of thoracic, 9.6% of congenital surgeons). The median number of cardiothoracic surgeons per institution was 12 (interquartile range [IQR], 10-17), with a median of 1 woman (IQR, 0-2). Fifteen of 79 programs (19%) had no women. Among women faculty 5.3% were clinical instructors, 51.3% were assistant professors, 23.0% were associate professors, 16.8% were full professors, and 3.5% had unspecified titles (vs 2.0%, 32.9%, 23.0%, 37.5%, and 4.6% among men, respectively; P < .001). Women and men authored a comparable number of first-author (0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3] vs 0.5 [IQR, 0.0-1.1], P = .56) publications per year but fewer last-author (0.1 [IQR, 0.0-0.7] vs 0.4 [IQR, 0.0-1.3], P < .0001) and total publications per year (2.7 [IQR, 1.0-6.2] vs 3.7 [IQR, 1.3-7.8], P = .05) than men. The H-index was lower for women than for men overall (8.0 [IQR, 3.0-15.0] vs 15.0 [IQR, 7.0-28.0], P < .001) but was similar between men and women who had been practicing for 10 to 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities persist in academic cardiothoracic surgery. Efforts should be made to support women in achieving senior roles and academic productivity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.