PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
17 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Gender shapes the relationship between productivity and journal prestige in science Open PDF(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2026-03-27) ;Ribeiro, Vítor H. ;Sunahara, Andre S. ;Shahtahmassebi, Golnaz ;Perc, MatjažRibeiro, Haroldo V.Gender disparities in academia manifest and persist in various aspects of the scientific enterprise, yet their influence on the interplay between research productivity and journal prestige remains underexplored. Here we analyze the academic trajectories of over 6000 elite Brazilian researchers by jointly tracking their annual productivity and the average prestige of the journals in which they publish. By projecting individual career years onto a standardized productivity-prestige plane and applying Bayesian hierarchical modeling, we find that male researchers are more likely to follow productivity-oriented trajectories and are markedly overrepresented in the hyperprolific region of this plane. Female peers, in contrast, more often occupy regions that prioritize journal prestige over publication quantity. Although male researchers publish more throughout their careers, their female counterparts achieve comparable or higher average journal prestige, particularly in later career stages and among outlier individuals. Male researchers also exhibit greater temporal persistence in their productivity and impact levels and are especially averse to simultaneously changing both metrics compared to their female peers. Among non-outliers, productivity and career age have a negative overall impact on the average journal prestige of researchers of both genders, with slightly stronger effects observed among female researchers; however, these patterns vary across disciplines, highlighting the complexity and heterogeneity of academic careers.Item type:Publication, Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons Open PDF(Academic Press Inc., 2016) ;Mueller, C.M. ;Gaudilliere, D.K. ;Kin, C. ;Menorca, R.Girod, S.Background Female surgeons have faced significant challenges to promotion over the past decades, with attrition rates supporting a lack of improvement in women's position in academia. We examine gender disparities in research productivity, as measured by the number of citations, publications, and h-indices, across six decades. Materials and methods The online profiles of full-time faculty members of surgery departments of three academic centers were reviewed. Faculty members were grouped into six cohorts by decade, based on year of graduation from medical school. Differences between men and women across cohorts as well as by academic rank were examined. Results The profiles of 978 surgeons (234 women and 744 men) were reviewed. The number of female faculty members in the institutions increased significantly over time, reaching the current percentage of 35.3%. Significant differences in number of articles published were noted at the assistant and full but not at the associate, professor level. Women at these ranks had fewer publications than men. Gender differences were also found in all age cohorts except among the most recent who graduated in the 2000s. The impact of publications, as measured by h-index and number of citations, was not consistently significantly different between the genders at any age or rank. Conclusions We identified a consistent gender disparity in the number of publications for female faculty members across a 60-year span. Although the youngest cohort, those who graduated in the 2000s, appeared to avoid the gender divide, our data indicate that overall women still struggle with productivity in the academic arena. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Item type:Publication, Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19 Open PDF(2022) ;Madsen, Emil Bargmann ;Nielsen, Mathias Wullum ;Bjørnholm, Josefine ;Jagsi, ReshmaAndersen, Jens PeterPublications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.Item type:Publication, The glass ceiling thickens: the impact of COVID-19 on academic medicine faculty in the United States Open PDF(2022) ;Lufler, Rebecca S.McNulty, Margaret A.The inequities faced by women in academic Medicine before the COVID-19 pandemic are well established. However, there is little formal data regarding exactly how the pandemic has affected faculty. This cross-sectional study investigated the impact of the pandemic on responsibilities at home, work, and mental health according to gender identification, faculty rank, and faculty appointment. In February 2021, an online questionnaire was broadly distributed to academic medicine faculty. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, answer questions about their responsibilities at home and work, mental health, and how the pandemic has influenced these. Respondents were also asked to document what their institution(s) can do to help faculty through the pandemic. Responses were analyzed via Pearson's chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Women faculty were more likely to be responsible for the care of others (70%, p = 0.014), and the impact was negative, especially for early career faculty (p = 0.019). Productivity in research, teaching, and clinical practice were negatively impacted, with women feeling this in clinical practice (p = 0.005), increased teaching load (p = 0.042), and inadequate work environment (p = 0.013). In the areas of self-care and mental health, women (p < 0.001), early career-faculty (p < 0.001), and clinical faculty (p = 0.029) were more negatively impacted. Early-career women were more likely to fear retribution. Five themes emerged, including Flexible Expectations, Support, Mental Health, Compensation, and Communication. Pre-pandemic stress and burnout were rampant, and this study demonstrates that academic medicine faculty are still suffering. It is the authors' hope that administrations can utilize these data to make informed decisions regarding policies enacted to assist populations who are most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic.Item type:Publication, Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science Open PDF(2013) ;Larivière, Vincent ;Ni, Chaoqun ;Gingras, Yves ;Cronin, BlaiseSugimoto, Cassidy R.Cassidy R. Sugimoto and colleagues present a bibliometric analysis confirming that gender imbalances persist in research output worldwide.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, SabeenaNakae, SunnyOBJECTIVE: 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, Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic Open PDF(2021) ;Krukowski, Rebecca A. ;Jagsi, ReshmaCardel, Michelle I.Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.Item type:Publication, Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide. Open PDF(2019) ;Hafeez, Dawood M. ;Waqas, Ahmed ;Majeed, Salman ;Naveed, SadiqAfzal, Khalid I.Gender disparity has been documented in advanced doctoral degrees, research, and academic positions, and therefore, it can logically be deduced that the gender disparity would be found in journals' editorial boards. In this study, we sought to determine the gender distribution in editorial boards of psychiatry journals worldwide. We also studied the academic achievements of editorial board members by comparing professional background, education level, and research productivity indices. We analyzed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals from Clarivate Analytics' Journal Citation Reports. Our data included 8423 editorial board members from which we randomly selected 10% editorial board members to represent the full sample for further analyses. Overall, women represented 30.4% of editorial board and approximately 30% in each category: (1) Editor-in-chief/deputies, (2) Associate/section editors, (3) Editorial board*, and (4) Advisory board. The majority (65%) of men were M.D. psychiatrists, and women (58%) were Ph.D. psychologists. Women in editorial leadership positions (Category 1 & 2) were correlated with fewer women in editorial or advisory boards. Women had half the mean number of publications than men while serving journals with approximately the same mean impact factor. Our study results show that, besides gender disparity, gender bias does not exist in the psychiatry journal editorial boards. Given the implication of the editorial board position on science, academic advancement, and networking, this disparity remains detrimental to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic psychiatry.Item type:Publication, COVID-19 Threatens Progress Toward Gender Equity Within Academic Medicine Open PDF(2021) ;Woitowich, Nicole C. ;Jain, Shikha ;Arora, Vineet M.Joffe, HadineWomen remain underrepresented within academic medicine despite past and present efforts to promote gender equity. The authors discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic could stymie progress toward gender parity within the biomedical workforce and limit the retention and advancement of women in science and medicine. Women faculty face distinct challenges as they navigate the impact of shelter-in-place and social distancing on work and home life. An unequal division of household labor and family care between men and women means women faculty are vulnerable to inequities that may develop in the workplace as they strive to maintain academic productivity and professional development without adequate assistance with domestic tasks and family care. Emerging data suggest that gender differences in academic productivity may be forthcoming as a direct result of the pandemic. Existing gender inequities in professional visibility, networking, and collaboration may be exacerbated as activities transition from in-person to virtual environments and create new barriers to advancement. Meanwhile, initiatives designed to promote gender equity within academic medicine may lose key funding due to the economic impact of COVID-19 on higher education. To ensure that the gender gap within academic medicine does not widen, the authors call upon academic leaders and the broader biomedical community to support women faculty through deliberate actions that promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors provide several recommendations, including faculty needs assessments; review of gender bias within tenure-clock-extension offers; more opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship, and professional recognition; and financial commitments to support equity initiatives. Leadership for these efforts should be at the institutional and departmental levels, and leaders should ensure a gender balance on task forces and committees to avoid overburdening women faculty with additional service work. Together, these strategies will contribute to the development of a more equitable workforce capable of transformative medical discovery and care.Item type:Publication, Gender Differences in Academic Productivity and Advancement Among Dental School Faculty Open PDF(2019) ;Simon, Lisa ;Candamo, Fiorella ;He, Puhan ;Karhade, Deepti ShroffPirooz, YasameenBackground: An equal number of women and men are now graduating from dental school, but women dentists have lower income and are less likely to achieve positions of leadership, including within dental academia. Materials and Methods: Demographic information and academic rank were obtained for all faculty at the eight dental schools who received the most funding from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research in 2017. Years since dental school graduation, total number of PubMed-indexed citations, first- and last-author publications, and H-index were determined for each faculty member. Gender differences in productivity and advancement were evaluated. Results: Of 702 faculty members, 36.5% were female; only 24.4% of full professors were women. Men had significantly higher numbers of publications (30.2 [95% confidence interval [CI, 28.6-39.5] vs. 20.4 [95% CI 16.3-24.6], p = 0.02) and higher H-index (8.2 [95% CI 7.1-9.1] vs. 4.7 [95% CI 3.9-5.5], p < 0.0001). Women had graduated more recently than their male colleagues at all levels of academic advancement (overall 22.83 years [95% CI 21.29-24.39] vs. 30.19 years [95% CI 28.84-31.55], p < 0.0001). When corrected for academic productivity and years since graduation, the association between gender and academic rank was not significant. Conclusions: Women are underrepresented at each academic rank except instructor; however, women may advance more quickly than their male counterparts. Increasing scholarship and mentorship opportunities for female faculty members may help improve gender equity in dental academia.