PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Academic Productivity

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender-based comparison of academic rank and scholarly productivity in academic neurological surgery Open PDF 
    (2014)
    Tomei, K.L.
    ;
    Nahass, M.M.
    ;
    Husain, Q.
    ;
    Agarwal, N.
    ;
    Patel, S.K.
    The number of women pursuing training opportunities in neurological surgery has increased, although they are still underrepresented at senior positions relative to junior academic ranks. Research productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process. We sought to use the h-index, a bibliometric previously analyzed among neurological surgeons, to evaluate whether there are gender differences in academic rank and research productivity among academic neurological surgeons. The h-index was calculated for 1052 academic neurological surgeons from 84 institutions, and organized by gender and academic rank. Overall men had statistically higher research productivity (mean 13.3) than their female colleagues (mean 9.5), as measured by the h-index, in the overall sample (p < 0.0007). When separating by academic rank, there were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) in h-index at the assistant professor (mean 7.2 male, 6.3 female), associate professor (11.2 male, 10.8 female), and professor (20.0 male, 18.0 female) levels based on gender. There was insufficient data to determine significance at the chairperson rank, as there was only one female chairperson. Although overall gender differences in scholarly productivity were detected, these differences did not reach statistical significance upon controlling for academic rank. Women were grossly underrepresented at the level of chairpersons in this sample of 1052 academic neurological surgeons, likely a result of the low proportion of females in this specialty. Future studies may be needed to investigate gender-specific research trends for neurosurgical residents, a cohort that in recent years has seen increased representation by women. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in authorship: A fifteen-year bibliometric analysis of interventional radiology journals Open PDF 
    (2025)
    Stirrat, T.
    ;
    Thiru, S.
    ;
    Gao, Y.
    ;
    Tran, C.
    ;
    Baek, G.
    Introduction: This study explores the evolution of authorship dynamics in Interventional Radiology over a fifteen-year period, with a focus on gender disparities. It aims to illuminate the representation of female authors in high-impact IR journals, highlighting ongoing challenges in achieving gender diversity, especially in leadership roles. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on articles published from 2008 to 2023, systematically assessing trends in female first and last authorships, as well as their overall contribution to total authorship within prominent IR journals. Results: The analysis revealed a fluctuating trajectory in female authorship. Female first authorship peaked in 2011, followed by a decline through 2012-2013, and subsequently rebounded by 2023. Female last authorship exhibited a similar non-linear pattern, with an initial decline from 2008 to 2013, before gradually increasing in recent years. Overall, the presence of female authors in IR publications has steadily grown, with a notable rise in the proportion of publications featuring female authors and an increase in the average number of female contributors per article by 2023. Conclusion: Despite the overall growth in female authorship, significant disparities persist, particularly in senior authorship positions. These findings highlight the need for sustained efforts to address gender inequities in IR, emphasizing the importance of robust policies and support systems to promote women's advancement within the field. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review Open PDF 
    (J Surg Res, 2024)
    S, Subramanian
    ;
    Rs, Maisner
    ;
    N, Patel
    ;
    A, Song
    ;
    L, Yuan
    Abstract Introduction: Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities. Methods: Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles. Results: Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005). Conclusions: While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research productivity and gender disparities: A look at academic plastic surgery Open PDF 
    (2014)
    Paik, A.M.
    ;
    Mady, L.J.
    ;
    Villanueva, N.L.
    ;
    Goljo, E.
    ;
    Svider, P.F.
    Objectives The h-index has utility in examining the contributions of faculty members by quantifying both the amount and the quality of research output and as such is a metric in approximating academic productivity. The objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate the relationship between h-index and academic rank in plastic surgery and (2) to describe the current gender representation in academic plastic surgery to assess whether there are any gender disparities in academic productivity. Design The h-index was used to evaluate the research contributions of plastic surgeons from academic departments in the United States. Results There were 426 (84%) men and 79 (16%) women in our sample. Those in higher academic ranks had higher h-index scores (p < 0.0005). There was a significant difference in overall mean h-index by gender, where the mean scores were 9.0 and 6.0 for men and women, respectively (p = 0.0005). When analyzed by academic rank, there was a significant difference in academic productivity between men and women in assistant and associate professor positions (6.4 vs 5.1, respectively; p = 0.04). Conclusions The h-index is able to objectively and reliably quantify academic productivity in plastic surgery. We found that h-indices increased with higher academic rank, and men had overall higher scores than their female colleagues. Adoption of this metric as an adjunct to other objective and subjective measures by promotions committees may provide a more reliable measure of research relevance and academic productivity in academic plastic surgery. © 2014 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. Allrights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in research productivity among 9952 academic physicians Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Eloy, J.A.
    ;
    Svider, P.F.
    ;
    Cherla, D.V.
    ;
    Diaz, L.
    ;
    Kovalerchik, O.
    Objectives/Hypothesis The number of women in medicine has increased considerably over the past 3 decades, and they now comprise approximately half of medical school matriculants. We examine whether gender disparities in research productivity are present throughout various specialties and compare these findings to those previously described among otolaryngologists. Study Design Bibliometric analysis. Methods Research productivity, measured by the h-index, was calculated for 9,952 academic physicians representing 34 medical specialties. Additionally, trends in how rate of research productivity changed throughout different career stages were compared. Results Women were underrepresented at the level of professor and in positions of departmental leadership relative to their representation among assistant and associate professors. Male faculty had statistically higher research productivity both overall (H = 10.3 ±0.14 vs. 5.6 ± 0.14) and at all academic ranks. For the overall sample, men and women appeared to have equivalent rates of research productivity. In internal medicine, men had higher early-career productivity, while female faculty had productivity equaling and even surpassing that of their male colleagues beyond 20 to 25 years. Men and women had equivalent productivity in surgical specialties throughout their careers, and similar rates in pediatrics until 25 to 30 years. Conclusions Female academic physicians have decreased research productivity relative to men, which may be one factor contributing to their underrepresentation at the level of professor and departmental leader relative to their proportions in junior academic ranks. Potential explanations may include fewer woman physicians in the age groups during which higher academic ranks are attained, greater family responsibilities, and greater involvement in clinical service and educational contributions. Level of Evidence N/A. Laryngoscope, 123:1865-1875, 2013 © 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Eloy, J.A.
    ;
    Svider, P.
    ;
    Chandrasekhar, S.S.
    ;
    Husain, Q.
    ;
    Mauro, K.M.
    Objective. To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author. Study Design and Setting. Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. Methods. Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties. Results. Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts. Conclusions. The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men. © American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2013.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF 
    (INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences, 2022)
    Cui, R.
    ;
    Ding, H.
    ;
    Zhu, F.
    Problem definition: We study the disproportionate impact of the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak on female and male academic research productivity in social science. Academic/practical relevance: The lockdown has caused substantial disruptions to academic activities, requiring people to work from home. How this disruption affects productivity and the related gender equity is an important operations and societal question. Methodology: We collect data from the largest open-access preprint repository for social science on 41,858 research preprints in 18 disciplines produced by 76,832 authors across 25 countries over a span of two years. We use a difference-in-differences approach leveraging the exogenous pandemic shock. Results: Our results indicate that, in the 10 weeks after the lockdown in the United States, although total research productivity increased by 35%, female academics’ productivity dropped by 13.2% relative to that of male academics. We also show that this intensified productivity gap is more pronounced for assistant professors and for academics in top-ranked universities and is found in six other countries. Managerial implications: Our work points out the fairness issue in productivity caused by the lockdown, a finding that universities will find helpful when evaluating faculty productivity. It also helps organizations realize the potential unintended consequences that can arise from telecommuting. © 2021 INFORMS