PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 13

Citation practices in tourism research: Toward a gender conscientious engagement Open PDF
(2019)
Nunkoo, R.
;
Hall, C.M.
;
Rughoobur-Seetah, S.
;
Teeroovengadum, V.
This study explores gender gaps and differences in citation practices of scholars in the top-cited articles in tourism research. The results suggest that male researchers dominate the authorship of those articles and are more likely to engage in self-citation than females. The study also finds a disparity in citation counts between male- and female-authored articles. Controlling for other factors, author gender is an important determinant of citation counts. The study advocates for a more gender conscious citation practices and provides potential gender-based interventions to reduce the citation gap. The research raises awareness about the dangers of the perfunctory use of citations and paves the way for further debates on the politics and embedded inequalities of citations in tourism research. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd
Evaluating the research performance of women scientists in Indian research laboratories based on Scopus citation database: A bibliometric analysis
(2022)
Mukherjee, B.
This study examines the contributions of women scientists currently working in various research organizations under the Ministry of Science and Technology, India. Women scientists were identified through the official websites of the research laboratories and their publication performance has been tracked using the Scopus database. There are 901 women scientists working in 78 research organizations under the Ministry and have published 21810 publications up to December 2019, almost 65 percent of which has been appeared during 2010 to 2019. The publication per scientist has risen from 6.85 article per year before 2000 to 10.45 paper in 2015-2019 which indicates increasing participation of women in science from India. Women scientists are primarily engaged in biological sciencesresearch, however fields such as materials sciences, nano-technology, and astrophysics are also becoming the preferred subject choices among women. Women scientists mostly published their articles as a member of a team of utmost 10 authors, however, their position in multi-authored articles is mostly as co-authors than that of principal authors. Women in the age group ofbetween31 to 40 produced maximum publications, and almost 98 percent of publications appeared in collaboration with other scientists.This study confirms that publication productivity does not decline with age. There are women scientists who stay active in research and keep their productivity at a high level until their retirement. The study suggests that the increasing participation of women in Indian science is encouraging, as such more funding opportunities to younger women researchers may be important to give them more lead time to build a strong career. © 2022
Gender effects in research evaluation Open PDF
(2017)
Jappelli, T.
;
Nappi, C.A.
;
Torrini, R.
The paper contributes to the literature on gender gap in research investigating whether there is a gender gap in research evaluation. We use detailed data on 180,000 research papers evaluated during the Italian national research assessment (VQR 2004–2010) conducted by the Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (Anvur). The data are merged with information on individual researchers and characteristics of referees. The most important empirical finding is that there is a significant gender gap in research evaluation. The gap is reduced once we control for researchers’ characteristics, such as age and academic rank, but is almost unaffected by the characteristics of the research output (monographs, journal articles, book chapters, etc.), co-authorships, international collaborations. Childbearing and maternity leaves do not account for the remaining gap in research evaluation. The evaluation method (peer review or bibliometric analysis) and the referee mix (whether men or women) do not disadvantage women. Analysis of a random sample of papers evaluated using bibliometric indicators and peer review reveals that bibliometric evaluation proves to be more favourable to women than peer review evaluation. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.
Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research Open PDF
(2021)
Zhang, L.
;
Sivertsen, G.
;
Du, H.
;
Huang, Y.
;
Glänzel, W.
This study uses mixed methods—classical citation analysis, altmetric analysis, a survey with researchers as respondents, and text analysis of the abstracts of scientific articles—to investigate gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. We find that male researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at scientific progress, which is more cited. Female researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at contributing to societal progress, which has more abstract views (usage). The gender differences are observed among researchers who work in the same field of research and have the same age and academic position. Our findings have implications for evaluation and funding policies and practices. A critical discussion of how societal engagement versus citation impact is valued, and how funding criteria reflect gender differences, is warranted. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
Authorship and citation gender trends in immunology and microbiology Open PDF
(2020)
Thelwall, M.A.
Immunology and microbiology research are essential for human and animal health. Unlike many other health fields, they do not usually centre around the curing or helping individual patients but focus on the microscopic scale instead. These fields are interesting from a gender perspective because two theories seeking to explain gender differences in career choices in the USA (people/things and communal/agentic goals) might produce conflicting expectations about their gender balances. This article assesses the gender shares of journal articles and gendered citation rates of five subfields of the Scopus Immunology and Microbiology broad category 1996-2014/18, for research with solely US author affiliations. Only Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (38% female) had not reached gender parity in publishing by 2018. There was a female first author citation advantage in Parasitology but a disadvantage in Immunology. Immunology, Parasitology and Virology, had female last author citation disadvantages, but all gender effects were much smaller (<5%) than that of an extra author (10%-56%). Citation differences cannot therefore account for the current underrepresentation of women in senior roles. © 2020 FEMS.
Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia Open PDF
(2020)
Thelwall, M.
;
Sud, P.
Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible undercitation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first-and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Pardeep Sud. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine Open PDF
(2022)
Thelwall, M.
;
Maflahi, N.
Female under-representation continues in senior roles within academic medicine, potentially influenced by a perception that female research has less citation impact. This article provides systematic evidence of (a) female participation rates from the perspective of published journal articles in 46 Scopus medical subject categories 1996–2018 and (b) gender differences in citation rates 1996–2014. The results show female proportion increases 1996–2018 in all fields and a female majority of first-authored articles in two-fifths of categories, but substantial differences between fields. A paper is 7.3 times more likely to have a female first author in Obstetrics and Gynaecology than in Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Only three fields had a female last author majority by 2018, a probable side effect of ongoing problems with appointing female leaders. Female first-authored research tended to be more cited than male first-authored research in most fields (59%), although with a maximum difference of only 5.1% (log-transformed normalised citations). In contrast, male last-authored research tends to be more cited than female last-authored research, perhaps due to cases where a senior male has attracted substantial funding for a project. These differences increase if team sizes are not accounted for in the calculations. Since female first-authored research is cited slightly more than male first-authored research, properly analysed bibliometric data considering career gaps should not disadvantage female candidates for senior roles. © The Author(s) 2020.
Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014 Open PDF
(2020)
Thelwall, M.
Initiatives addressing the lack of women in many academic fields, and the general lack of senior women, need to be informed about the causes of any gender differences that may affect career progression, including citation impact. Previous research about gender differences in journal article citation impact has found the direction of any difference to vary by country and field, but has usually avoided discussions of the magnitude and wider significance of any differences and has not been systematic in terms of fields and/or time. This study investigates differences in citation impact between male and female first-authored research for 27 broad fields and six large English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) from 1996 to 2014. The results show an overall female first author citation advantage, although in most broad fields it is reversed in all countries for some years. International differences include Medicine having a female first author citation advantage for all years in Australia, but a male citation advantage for most years in Canada. There was no general trend for the gender difference to increase or decrease over time. The average effect size is small, however, and unlikely to have a substantial influence on overall gender differences in researcher careers. © 2020 Mike Thelwall. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion Open PDF
(2021)
Cruz-Castro, L.
;
Sanz-Menendez, L.
Criteria for assessing candidates are essential elements for the functioning of evaluation practices in academia. This article addresses a relevant issue of academia: the preference for evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion, as reported by female and male academics employed at Spanish universities. We use survey data from 4,460 faculty members, testing whether there are differences in the evaluation criteria that women and men prefer and exploring the factors that account for such preferences. Our focus is on bibliometric evaluation criteria. We propose an analytical model that considers the influence of career and quality factors, values about universalism and the mission of universities, and beliefs about meritocracy in the context of the academic evaluation system. We use a binary logistic model to explain the preference for bibliometric criteria and develop the comparisons by gender using predicted probabilities and marginal effects for estimating the difference. We find that female academics do not have the same preferences as men and report lower preferences for bibliometrics. However, women at the highest research quality levels have similar probabilities than males to prefer bibliometric criteria for evaluation. © 2021
Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics Open PDF
(2019)
Corsi, Marcella
;
D’Ippoliti, Carlo
;
Zacchia, Giulia
This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results