DSpace-CRIS

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF
(2024)
Meyer, A.
;
Streichert, T.
Background: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. Methods: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. Results: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. Conclusions: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively. © 2024 JMIR Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory Open PDF
(2024)
Matias-Rayme, N.
;
Botezan, I.
;
Suárez-Figueroa, M.C.
;
Sánchez-Jiménez, R.
This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts, employing a comparative analysis of diverse techniques, including a SVM classifier, gender-guesser, genderize.io, and a Cultural Consensus Theory based classifier. Emphasizing the significance of transparency, data sources, and methodological considerations, the research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database. The results reveal a substantial reduction in the number of individuals with unknown gender compared to traditional methods relying on INE data. The nuanced differences in gender distribution underscore the importance of methodological choices in gender studies, urging for transparent, comprehensive, and freely accessible methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of gender assignment in academic research. After reevaluating the problem of gender imbalances in the doctoral system we can conclude that it’s still evident although the trend is clearly set for its reduction. Finaly, specific problems related to some disciplines, including STEM fields and seniority roles are found to be worth of attention in the near future. © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2024.
Gender equity of authorship in pulmonary medicine over the past decade Open PDF
(2023)
Geng, F.
;
Ren, Y.
;
Hou, H.
;
Dai, B.
;
Scott, J.B.
Background: Gender disparity in authorship broadly persists in medical literature, little is known about female authorship within pulmonary medicine. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021 in 12 journals with the highest impact in pulmonary medicine was conducted. Only original research and review articles were included. Names of the first and last authors were extracted and their genders were identified using the Gender-API web. Female authorship was described by overall distribution and distribution by country/region/continent and journal. We compared the article citations by gender combinations, evaluated the trend in female authorship, and forecasted when parity for first and last authorship would be reached. We also conducted a systematic review of female authorship in clinical medicine. Results: 14,875 articles were included, and the overall percentage of female first authors was higher than last authors (37.0% vs 22.2%, p<0.001). Asia had the lowest percentage of female first (27.6%) and last (15.2%) authors. The percentages of female first and last authors increased slightly over time, except for a rapid increase in the COVID-19 pandemic periods. Parity was predicted in 2046 for the first authors and 2059 for the last authors. Articles with male authors were cited more than articles with female authors. However, male-male collaborations significantly decreased, whereas female-female collaborations significantly increased. Conclusions: Despite the slow improvement in female authorship over the past decade, there is still a substantial gender disparity in female first and last authorship in high-impact medical journals in pulmonary medicine. © 2023 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results