PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9

Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF
(2018)
Ouyang, David
;
Sing, David
;
Shah, Sonia
;
Hu, Jiaqi
;
Duvernoy, Claire
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
Revisiting the Gender Gap in Orthopaedic Surgery: Investigating the Relationship Between Orthopaedic Surgery Female Faculty and Female Residency Applicants. Open PDF
(2019)
Munger, Alana M.
;
Heckmann, Nathanael
;
McKnight, Braden
;
Dusch, Marie N.
;
Hatch, George F. 3rd
INTRODUCTION: Although women now constitute approximately half of all graduating medical students, orthopaedic surgery continues to lag behind in its ability to recruit female applicants. One hypothesis for this discrepancy is the lack of female faculty mentors at academic institutions. The three objectives of this study were the following: (1) to quantify the proportion of female orthopaedic surgery residency applicants, (2) to quantify the proportion of female orthopaedic surgery faculty, and (3) to investigate the relationship between female orthopaedic surgery faculty at an academic institution and the corresponding number of female orthopaedic surgery residency applicants. METHODS: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges from 2005 to 2014 were used to calculate the number of medical school graduates, the number of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants, and the number of orthopaedic full-time faculty in the United States. Institutions were excluded if they had incomplete data. A Spearman rank correlation was used to assess for a correlation between the 9-year total number of female orthopaedic surgery applicants and the average number of female orthopaedic surgery faculty members. RESULTS: A total of 101 U.S. medical schools were included in the final analysis. During the period examined, women accounted for 48.7% of medical school graduates, 14.9% of orthopaedic surgery applicants, and 13.2% of full-time orthopaedic surgery faculty. The percentage of female residency applicants increased from 13.91% in 2005 to 2006 to 16.02% in 2013 to 2014 while the percentage of female faculty increased from 12.26% in 2005 to 2006 to 15.79% in 2013 to 2014. No correlation was found between the average number of female orthopaedic surgery faculty at an institution and the total number of female orthopaedic surgery applicants from that institution during the study period examined (Rho, 0.0176; P = 0.5957). CONCLUSIONS: The data presented in this study failed to demonstrate a relationship between the number of female faculty and the number of women who apply into orthopaedic surgery, which highlights the complex nature of this issue. More research is needed to examine factors influencing the recruitment of female medical students.
What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? Open PDF
(2020)
Hiller, Kathryn P.
;
Boulos, Alexandre
;
Tran, Megan M.
;
Cruz, Aristides I.
BACKGROUND: The gender gap among authors publishing research in journals is narrowing in general medicine and various medical and surgical subspecialties. However, little is known regarding the gender gap among authors publishing research in orthopaedic journals. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women first and last authors of original research articles in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017? (2) What is the proportion women first authors of original research by orthopaedic subspecialty from 2006 to 2017? METHODS: A sample of original research publications from the even numbered months of issues of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume (JBJS), and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) were examined from 2006 to 2017. These journals were selected because of their clinical relevance, target audience, and relatively high impact factors. Over the studied period, a single author extracted and reviewed pertinent data, including the gender of the first and last authors and the primary subspecialty of the research article. The senior author refereed disputes regarding the primary subspecialty of each included article. The proportion of women first and last authors in each journal was compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. The proportion of women first authors according to orthopaedic subspecialty in which an article primarily focused its study was also compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 6292 articles, 13% (800) of which were first-authored by women and 10% (604) of which were last-authored by women. From 2006 to 2017, the overall percentage of women first authors in the examined journals increased (from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2017; odds ratio 1.6563 [95 % CI 1.4945 to 1.8356]; p < 0.001). Overall across the period studied, the percentage of women first authors in JBJS was 14% while 12% of first authors in CORR and AJSM were women. Regarding subspecialty, the percentage of women first authorship ranged from 9% in the shoulder subspecialty to 21% in pediatric orthopaedics across all three journals. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the percentage of women first authors in articles published in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017. This observed increase is encouraging in terms of promoting gender diversity in orthopaedics and may be reflective of a modest increase in the number of women entering the orthopaedic workforce. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Between 2006 and 2017, the overall number of women first authors in CORR, JBJS, and AJSM modestly increased. This may suggest a nascent narrowing of the gender gap in orthopaedics. Although this is a welcome finding in terms of promoting and encouraging gender diversity in this man-dominated field, the overall percentage of women authorship remains modest, at best. Future investigations should examine whether the modest increase in women first authorship over time found in this study translates into an increased percentage of senior/last authorship in the future, as this may have implications for women orthopaedic workforce retention.
Gender trends at the annual Spanish Urologic Association (AEU) meeting: A review of AEU programmes over a 10-year period (2012-2022) Open PDF
(2024)
Sierra, A.
;
Mercader, C.
;
Pagés, R.
;
Seguí, E.
;
Musquera, M.
INTRODUCTION: Gender equity in urological meetings is pivotal for fostering diversity and inclusivity in the field. This study aims to evaluate the representation of Spanish urologist and regional disparities, and to assess its alignment with the demographic composition of the urological community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All urology meetings organized by the AEU between January 2012 and December 2022 were reviewed, including meeting information and details of the faculty. Additionally, we analysed geographic distribution of speakers across 17 different regions. Gender demographics were obtained disaggregating data by sex and year from the Organización Médica Colegial de España (OMC) and from those urologists affiliated to the AEU. RESULTS: Analysing 52 AEU congresses held from 2012 to 2022, encompassing 3,407 speakers, the study found that 95.25% of speakers were from Spain and 89.6% were male speakers. Over the years, there was a positive trend in female speaker representation, increasing by 1.1% annually, slightly lagging the 1.8% annual rise in the number of female urologists in Spain. In specific subfields like functional, transplantation, and oncology sessions, the study revealed a higher representation of women, indicating focused efforts in these areas. Geographically, Madrid, Catalonia and Andalusia exhibited the highest representation. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a positive trend towards an increased participation of female urologists in Spanish urological meetings, it fails to accurately reflect the proportional increase in the number of women entering the urology profession in recent years. This study underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to ensure diverse and balanced representation in urological forum.
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.
Gender Differences in Authorship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 28-Year Analysis of Publications Originating From the United States, 1990-2017 Open PDF
(2019)
Pagel, Paul S.
;
Freed, Julie K.
;
Lien, Cynthia A.
OBJECTIVE: Gender-based differences in scholarship among cardiothoracic anesthesiologists have not been studied. The authors examined the gender distribution of authorship of original research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) originating from the United States during four 3-year intervals to determine temporal changes in productivity of women in cardiothoracic anesthesiology. The authors tested the hypothesis that scholarly output of women has increased progressively in JCVA over time concomitant with greater participation in first, last, and corresponding author roles. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Internet analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Authors of research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials published in JCVA in 1990-92, 1999-2001, 2008-10, and 2015-17. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The gender of each author was determined by inspection of the first name. If gender could not be established easily, the author's institutional website was examined or an internet search using the Google search engine was conducted. First, last, and corresponding authors as well as coauthors were noted for each article. A total of 1,195 publications with 4,982 authors (1,032 women; 20.7%) were examined. Gender was identified positively in 98.5% of authors. Women were first, last, and corresponding authors on 22.4%, 10.3%, and 14.6% of publications, respectively. The percentage of women who were authors increased from 12.1% in 1990-92 to 20.9% in 1999-2001 (p < 0.05), but plateaued in 2008 to 2010 (22.3%) and 2015 to 2017 (22.9%). Greater percentages of women were first authors (26.2%), senior authors (11.8%), and corresponding authors (16.6%) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 1990 to 1992 (9.6%, 7.0%, and 8.7%, respectively; p < 0.05 for each). The contributions of women to research articles and case reports were primarily responsible for these observed increases, although women also made a substantial impact with review articles in 2015 to 2017. The percentage of publications that included at least 1 female author in any capacity increased in a time-dependent manner (p < 0.05) from 31.0% (1990-1992) to 74.4% (2015-2017). The proportion of female first or last authors (35.0%) appearing in JCVA during 2015 to 2017 was modestly higher than the current percentage of female cardiothoracic anesthesiologists practicing in departments with accredited fellowship programs (29.1%). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that scholarly output of women rose in JCVA over time, but gains in productivity have plateaued more recently. These findings are encouraging, but women continue to be underrepresented in corresponding and last author roles.
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.
Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF
(2020)
Brown, Meghan A.
;
Erdman, Mary Kate
;
Munger, Alana M.
;
Miller, Anna N.
BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.
Status of Women in Academic Anesthesiology: A 10-Year Update. Open PDF
(2019)
Bissing, Martha A.
;
Lange, Elizabeth M. S.
;
Davila, Wilmer F.
;
Wong, Cynthia A.
;
McCarthy, Robert J.
BACKGROUND: Gender inequity is still prevalent in today's medical workforce. Previous studies have investigated the status of women in academic anesthesiology. The objective of this study is to provide a current update on the status of women in academic anesthesiology. We hypothesized that while the number of women in academic anesthesiology has increased in the past 10 years, major gender disparities continue to persist, most notably in leadership roles. METHODS: Medical student, resident, and faculty data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges. The number of women in anesthesiology at the resident and faculty level, the distribution of faculty academic rank, and the number of women chairpersons were compared across the period from 2006 to 2016. The gender distribution of major anesthesiology journal editorial boards and data on anesthesiology research grant awards, among other leadership roles, were collected from websites and compared to data from 2005 and 2006. RESULTS: The number (%) of women anesthesiology residents/faculty has increased from 1570 (32%)/1783 (29%) in 2006 to 2145 (35%)/2945 (36%) in 2016 (P = .004 and P < .001, respectively). Since 2006, the odds that an anesthesiology faculty member was a woman increased approximately 2% per year, with an estimated odds ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.014-1.025; P < .001). In 2015, the percentage of women anesthesiology full professors (7.4%) was less than men full professors (17.3%) (difference, -9.9%; 95% confidence interval of the difference, -8.5% to -11.3%; P < .001). The percentage of women anesthesiology department chairs remained unchanged from 2006 to 2016 (12.7% vs 14.0%) (P = .75). To date, neither Anesthesia & Analgesia nor Anesthesiology has had a woman Editor-in-Chief. The percentage of major research grant awards to women has increased significantly from 21.1% in 1997-2007 to 31.5% in 2007-2016 (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities continue to exist at the upper levels of leadership in academic anesthesiology, most importantly in the roles of full professor, department chair, and journal editors. However, there are some indications that women may be on the path to leadership parity, most notably, the growth of women in anesthesiology residencies and faculty positions and increases in major research grants awarded to women.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results