PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Language: search.filters.language.EnglishSubject: search.filters.subject.Editorial Policies

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 12
  • Item type:Publication,
    The influence of first author sex on acceptance rates of submissions to Anaesthesia Cases. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Laycock, H.
    ;
    Bailey, C. R.
    More than 50% of medical students and 45% of practising doctors are female in the UK. In the specialty of anaesthesia, 32% of consultants are female. However, compared with males, females are under-represented as authors of articles published in high-impact journals. We investigated the proportion of female first authors by examining the case reports submitted to Anaesthesia Cases since its inception in 2013. We defined authors by their sex (male or female), that is, biological characteristics, rather than their gender. There were a total of 802 submissions to Anaesthesia Cases over 4.5 years. Sixteen submissions were excluded and of the remaining 786 submissions, 279 were accepted and 507 rejected, an acceptance rate of 35.5%. Twenty (2.5%) authors' sex could not be identified. The overall proportion of female first authors was 37.1%. The proportion of female first authors of accepted case reports was 42.1% and females were first authors of rejected case reports in 34.4%. We found that, compared with previous studies on female sex and gender bias in publishing, there was a relatively high proportion of female first authors publishing in Anaesthesia Cases and female first authors were more likely to be accepted than male first authors. Authorship is considered to reflect career success and there continues to be sex/gender inequity that must be tackled at all levels, from application to medical school, through research funding, journals and Editorial Boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women's reproductive physiology Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kalidasan, Dharani
    ;
    Goshtasebi, Azita
    ;
    Chrisler, Joan
    ;
    Brown, Helen L.
    ;
    Prior, Jerilynn C.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment. DESIGN: A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status. RESULTS: Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors. CONCLUSION: Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender equality in palliative medicine editorial boards, authorships and national societies Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Haidinger, Michael
    ;
    Wechsler, Patrick
    ;
    Ravioli, Svenja
    ;
    Exadaktylos, Aristomenis
    ;
    Lindner, Gregor
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Parity Analysis of the Editorial Boards of Influential Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Szeto, Mindy D.
    ;
    Sivesind, Torunn E.
    ;
    Kim, Lori S.
    ;
    O'Connell, Katie A.
    ;
    Sprague, Kathryn A.
    This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Pediatrics: Progress, Barriers, and Opportunities for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Spector, Nancy D.
    ;
    Asante, Philomena A.
    ;
    Marcelin, Jasmine R.
    ;
    Poorman, Julie A.
    ;
    Larson, Allison R.
    Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. The sheer number of women who comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States suggests this specialty has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine and pediatrics. However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or even regressing. The fair treatment of women pediatricians will require enhanced and simultaneous commitment from leaders in 4 key gatekeeper groups: academic medical centers, hospitals, health care organizations, and practices; medical societies; journals; and funding agencies. In this report, we describe the 6-step equity, diversity, and inclusion cycle, which provides a strategic methodology to (1) examine equity, diversity, and inclusion data; (2) share results with stakeholders; (3) investigate causality; (4) implement strategic interventions; (5) track outcomes and adjust strategies; and (6) disseminate results. Next steps include the enforcement of a climate of transparency and accountability, with leaders prioritizing and financially supporting workforce gender equity. This scientific and data-driven approach will accelerate progress and help pave a pathway to better health care and science.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there an editorial glass ceiling? Editorial leadership in nephrology and transplantation journals: A gender-based cross-sectional analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Scarlato, Rose-Marie
    ;
    Wyburn, Kate
    ;
    Wyld, Melanie L.
    AIM: Editors-in-Chief (EiC) play a key role as gatekeepers in academic medicine, often shaping research agendas. Women have historically been underrepresented in editorial leadership roles in academic medicine. The purpose of this study was to examine gender representation among EiC of contemporary transplantation and nephrology journals. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated gender disparities among EiC of transplantation and nephrology medical journals. The study population was drawn from journals in two subject categories (1) 'Transplantation' and (2) 'Urology and Nephrology' in the 2023 Journal Citation Reports. Binary gender classification (woman/man) was determined by the names/pronouns used to describe the EiC on the journal or institutional webpage. The primary outcome was the proportion of women EiC. Secondary outcome was the proportion of women EiC based on journal topic, location and metrics. Descriptive statistics were used. Gender differences were compared using students t-test or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 79 EiC were identified of which 16 (20%) were women and 63 (80%) were men (p < .001). Transplantation and nephrology journals had 21% and 20% women EiC, respectively. The proportion of women to men EiC was not impacted by journal category (p = .93), journal location (p = .61), journal impact factor (p = .71) or quartile (p = .59). CONCLUSION: There was a disparity in gender representation in EiC in nephrology and transplantation journals, with men holding 80% of all positions. These findings, among growing evidence of gender disparity, highlight a need for targeted efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Schaechter, Judith D.
    ;
    Jacobs, Jeremy W.
    ;
    Booth, Garrett S.
    ;
    Dupont, William D.
    ;
    Silver, Julie K.
    Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How Well Represented Are Women Orthopaedic Surgeons and Residents on Major Orthopaedic Editorial Boards and Publications? Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Rynecki, Nicole D.
    ;
    Krell, Ethan S.
    ;
    Potter, James S.
    ;
    Ranpura, Akash
    ;
    Beebe, Kathleen S.
    BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that women are substantially underrepresented as orthopaedic surgeons and residents compared with other specialties in medicine and medical school. The reasons for this are multifactorial and not completely understood, but previous studies suggest that women may be attracted to fields in which they have female role models. Given that women interested in academia and research may use female editorship and authorship as a proxy for female representation in orthopaedic surgery, we wanted to examine the proportion of women represented in orthopaedic journals and determine if it reflects the distribution of women in orthopaedic surgery as a field. We further wanted to understand if this representation has changed over time in the setting of a slowly shifting gender landscape within orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How are women orthopaedic surgeons and residents represented in orthopaedic journals compared with men? (2) Have these proportions changed in the past two decades in light of relatively new efforts to recruit women to the field of orthopaedic surgery? METHODS: The gender composition of editorial boards and first and last authors were obtained from the 1997, 2007, and 2017 volumes of the following journals: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS), and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®). Gender neutral names were searched to obtain a picture to ensure proper tallies. RESULTS: The total combined amount of women first and last authors increased from 88 of 1450 (6%) in 1997 to 152 of 1912 (8%) in 2007 to 723 of 5391 (13%) in 2017. Similarly, three of 113 (3%) editorial board members were women in 1997, three of 105 (3%) were women in 2007 and 10 of 107 (9%) editors were women in 2017. Of note, 0 out of 9 editors-in-chief were women. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current percentage of women orthopaedic surgeons and residents, women are represented equally or in greater numbers as editors and authors in JAAOS, JBJS, and CORR. This may be in part due to women orthopaedic surgeons entering academic medicine at a greater rate than males. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic surgeons serving as mentors to prospective female applicants can cite female representation on editorial boards and as authors as an example of gender parity in the field. Additionally, active orthopaedic surgeons who are women interested in these leadership positions should be encouraged that these opportunities exist, regardless of gender.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón, María
    ;
    Godoy, Pere
    ;
    Ruano-Ravina, Alberto
    ;
    Negrín, Miguel Ángel
    ;
    Vives-Cases, Carmen
    Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014-2015. Results were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance. Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.