PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 224

Unpacking mathematical gender stereotypes: trends and directions from 25 years of research Open PDF
(Frontiers Media SA, 2025-11-18)
Nurlu, Özge
Gender norms shape multiple domains, including mathematics-long framed as a male-dominated field-thereby fostering pervasive mathematical gender stereotypes (MGS) that affect individuals' participation and achievement. This study aims to systematically synthesize empirical research published between 1999 and 2024, indexed in Web of Science, written in English, and available in full text. Only articles explicitly examining MGS were included; studies focused on broader STEM stereotypes, non-English publications, records without full-text access, and papers outside the specified time window were excluded. Limitations include the absence of protocol pre-registration-although inclusion/exclusion criteria and the analysis plan were specified in writing prior to the search and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed-and the unavoidable subjectivity in interpretation and categorization despite established inter-coder reliability. Analyses indicate that most studies are situated in psychology, frequently employ experimental designs, and primarily sample university students. Surveys dominate data collection, and parametric inferential statistics are commonly used. Geographically, the literature is concentrated in Western countries-particularly the United States and Germany-with limited contributions from the Global South. Publication counts fluctuate over time, with notable peaks in 2012 and 2022. Conceptually, the literature converges on two principal axes: (i) belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and (ii) process-based formulations centered on ST. Less frequently examined yet theoretically informative extensions include endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic role models, and stereotype lift. Across qualitative, descriptive, correlational, mediation, meta-analytic, and experimental evidence, findings consistently cluster around these axes, with stereotype endorsement and MGS occupying central positions. Taken together, the results underscore the need for future research that is more interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and methodologically diverse to more comprehensively address MGS.
Female Authorship in “Women in STEM” fields: A bibliometric Analysis Open PDF
(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2026)
Swanson, Morgan E
;
Liebl, Andrea L
Women in STEM and STEM-related fields face many issues preventing their sustained inclusion and success, from as early as childhood. Many issues persist into adulthood and careers, including pay disparities, hostile workplace interactions, workload imbalances, and uneven expectations in domestic roles. A growing body of literature seeks to address and analyze female disparities by studying and publishing research related to societal and cultural issues faced by women in STEM. However, the gender of the authors of literature focusing on this type of research also matters as a woman's experience in STEM might provide a different context; equally, male allyship is imperative to furthering gains made in the field. To determine what proportion of authors publishing on female disparity in STEM fields are women, we employed a large-scale bibliometric study to examine the trends in the proportion of three metrics of female authorship on publications related to "Women in STEM" topics; specifically, we analyzed the total female authors, female first authors, and female last authors of 7240 published manuscripts. Literature published between 2000 and 2024 was accessed using a search engine with nine search terms related to issues facing women in STEM, including terms about gender parity, gender inequity, gender attrition, pay gaps, the leaky pipeline, student gender bias, and motherhood in STEM. Overall, the proportion of female authors in any position, including specifically as both first and last author, increased over the period of our study. Our results also indicate a sustained overrepresentation of female authors during the latter portions of our analysis. These results highlight an increase in female authorship on "Women in STEM" literature and demonstrate that female researchers are becoming more central in studying these topics. Although increasing female participation in subjects related to women in STEM is important for perspective, context, and solutions, male inclusion is also important to ensure buy-in in the workplace and allow an equal distribution of labor.
Factors that influence the implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in healthcare leadership: A meta-ethnographic study Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2022-09)
Mousa, Mariam
;
Skouteris, Helen
;
Boyle, Jacqueline A.
;
Currie, Graeme
;
Riach, Kathleen
Summary Background Gender inequity in healthcare leadership persists and progress is slow, with the focus firmly on problems, barriers and on requiring women themselves to adapt and compete in a system not designed for them. Women are individually burdened to advance their careers, with little effort given to addressing systemic barriers in the health sector. A recent systematic review prioritised organisational-level approaches and demonstrated effective interventions. In this meta-ethnographic study, we further this work by examining factors in implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership. Methods The meta-ethnographic framework applied here follows the Noblit and Hare approach for synthesising findings and applying interpretive analysis to original research. We generated a new line-of-argument with insights for the healthcare sector. The protocol is registered (CRD42020162115) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Three academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS) were searched systematically between 2000 and 2021. Studies were analysed if they included organisational-level interventions that sought to measurably advance women in leadership. Study characteristics were extracted using a standard template for intervention details. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Data synthesis was conducted across 19 criteria of the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guide (eMERGe). Findings Fifteen qualitative studies were included. Analysis revealed three meta-themes that are central to successful implementation of organisational interventions that advance women in healthcare leadership: (1) leadership commitment and accountability, influenced by internal and external organisational settings, salient for long term outcomes and for developing an inclusive leadership culture; (2) intervention fit with individuals with consideration given to personal beliefs, preferences, experiences, capabilities or life circumstances, including capacity for leadership roles in their broader life context; balanced against maintaining interventional fidelity, and (3) cultural climate and organisational readiness for change, addressing traditional, conservative and constrictive perspectives on gender and leadership in health, highlighting the facilitating role of male colleagues. Interpretation This meta-ethnographic research extends past work by integrating empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of effective organisational level interventions, with the identification of pragmatic themes to generate, implement, evaluate and embed evidence-based organisational interventions to advance women in healthcare leadership. This work can inform initiatives and policymakers to generate and implement new knowledge to advance women in healthcare leadership.
Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals. Open PDF
(2026-05-01)
Lee, Emily Hyunmin
;
Gomes, Zoya
;
Kim, Jinny Minji
;
Liblik, Kiera
;
Travis, Nicole
INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles. RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022. CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications Open PDF
(Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2026-06)
Barnes, Leandra A.
;
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
;
Wind, Stefanie A.
;
Nord, Kristin M.
;
Laidlaw, Kathrina
BACKGROUND: The impact of rater bias in applicant selection for residency interviews using holistic review is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure faculty raters' bias toward applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status in their recommendations to offer residency interviews. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, applicant (n=3875) and faculty rater (n=69) data within a single institution's dermatology residency application database from 2014 to 2023 were examined for differences in rater judgments to interview applicants as measured by logits (ie, a standardized unit of scoring difference) using the many-facet Rasch model, a statistical method that accounts for variations among raters, applicants, and scoring for applicant gender (23% women, 14% men, and 63% unknown) and URiM status (26% White, 21% non-White non-URiM, 12% URiM, 41% unknown). RESULTS: Rater bias, as measured in logits using the rater severity measure, was minimal for applicant gender (-0.12, 0.08 logits) and URiM status (-0.07, 0.04 logits). However, raters were more lenient (ie, likely to favor an interview) when the applicant's and rater's gender (-1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (-0.46 logits, SE 0.05) were concordant. Conversely, raters were more severe (ie, unlikely to favor an interview) when discordant on gender (1.74 logits, SE 0.05) or URiM status (0.46 logits, SE 0.05). More than 50% of individual raters exhibited substantial gender bias, and approximately 33% for URiM status bias when concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Raters were more likely to favor offering interview invitations to applicants with concordant gender or URiM status and less likely to favor interviewing applicants with discordant gender or URiM status.
Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF
(California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
Manes, Akash
;
Lall, Michelle D.
;
Knight, Starr
;
Raja, Ali S.
;
Khosa, Faisal
Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
Gender inequity in leadership positions in spinal societies worldwide Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2026-05-14)
Rawall, Saurabh
;
Taylor, Sean
;
Peterson, Asa
;
Shrother, Ellyn
;
Rajaram, Sakthivel
PURPOSE: Orthopaedics and Neurosurgery rank as the worst with regards to the percentage of female residents. This trend carries on in spinal subspeciality training. The gap in gender equity increases significantly in academic leadership positions, including department chairs and full-time faculty, as well as speakers and faculty at conferences. The purpose of our study was to analyze the percentage of female representation in the leadership of spinal societies globally. METHODS: We evaluated the current leadership teams of national and international spine societies and recorded the percentage of females. RESULTS: We studied gender data of 73 spinal societies worldwide. 36 out of these had no female representation. Overall, 148 out of 1977 (7.5%) leadership positions were occupied by females. European Spine societies had the best gender ratio (16.9%), followed by North America (7.2%). Asia Pacific region had the worst gender ratio (1.2%). Middle East/Africa region and South America performed marginally better with 2.8% and 3.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Diversity improves innovation and quality of patient care. Female spinal surgeon leaders serve as role models and mentors. More needs to be done by our spinal societies to address gender disparity. Our article will provide data on an important aspect of gender disparity in spine surgery so that corrective measures can be initiated. There is an enormous gender disparity in leadership positions in spine societies worldwide. This phenomenon was observed across all regions, with Middle East/Africa and Asia Pacific regions recording the largest gender discrepancy.
Career success for women in academic medicine: eight self-help strategies Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-04)
Mehta, Sangeeta
;
Barrett, Kali
;
Menon, Kusum
Women in academic medicine encounter unique challenges, including implicit biases. They are underrepresented in scholarly activities, including as authors, editorial board members, conference speakers, and guideline panels. In this special article, we suggest eight strategies that women can use to ensure their voices are heard and to reduce the overall gender disparity in academic medicine. These include crafting an academic mission, celebrating successes, building a community, recognising implicit biases, taking risks, exploring creative work-life integration strategies, and learning from mistakes.
Understanding the significant underrepresentation of women in radiology Open PDF
(Elsevier BV, 2026-03)
Peraka, Veena
;
Raj, Karuna
;
Champine, Julie
;
Ozcan, Bersu
;
Dogan, Basak
The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the reasons for a significant underrepresentation of women in radiology. We systematically examined the gender disparity within radiology across career stages, including medical school, residency training, and faculty positions. A comprehensive literature analysis was conducted to identify the determinants influencing female medical students' and physicians' pursuit of radiology. Despite women making up approximately half of medical school graduates, their representation in radiology remains disproportionately low. Contributing factors include a scarcity of female mentors and insufficient exposure to radiology during medical training, leading to persistent misconceptions about the specialty. Additionally, female radiology faculty members encounter challenges, including gender bias and difficulty advancing in leadership positions, which contribute to professional dissatisfaction. Strategies like the formation of Women in Radiology groups and institutional initiatives have been established to increase mentorship for female trainees and progression of faculty in their careers. The underrepresentation of women is a concern that warrants attention due to the unique collaborative and empathetic dimensions that women contribute to patient care and education. Throughout their careers, women encounter numerous obstacles that affect their exposure to, involvement in, and satisfaction with the field. Addressing these barriers is crucial for enhancing the presence and influence of women in radiology.
Gender dynamics in authorship of scientific publications in obstetrics and gynaecology: a 10-year bibliometric analysis of six high-impact journals Open PDF
(BMJ, 2026-01)
Bobotis, Stergios
;
Stathi, Dimitra
;
Verigos, Emmanouil
;
Geropoulos, Georgios
;
Arsenaki, Elisavet
Objective Although obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) is a predominantly female specialty, previous studies have suggested that women remain under-represented in academic authorship. This study evaluates trends in female and male first and last authorship in six leading O&G journals (Human Reproduction Update, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology and Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology) between January 2013 and December 2023. Methods A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science database. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using Genderize.io, with a probability threshold of ≥75% for classification. Binary logistic regression was performed to model the probability of authorship by gender across journals. Results Among 57 310 publications, 38 455 first (43.8% male and 56.2% female) and 38 950 last authors (58.6% male and 41.4% female) were identified and analysed. Over the past decade, female authorship has shown a clear upward trend, with first authorship increasing from 43% (1141/2636) in 2013 to 69% (2769/4036) in 2023, and last authorship increasing from 29% (770/2700) to 54% (2180/4047). First authorship was statistically more likely to be held by women in Human Reproduction Update (1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48), American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (1.63, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.70) and Obstetrics & Gynecology (2.33, 95% CI 2.22 to 2.45). However, female last authorship was significantly more likely only in Obstetrics & Gynecology (1.21, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27). Conclusion Despite an increasing trend in female representation in first and last authorships over the past decade, a significant gender disparity persists. While women now constitute the majority of first authors, last authorship remains disproportionately male, reflecting ongoing barriers to female leadership in O&G research. These findings highlight the need for targeted institutional efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine. Although obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) is a predominantly female specialty, previous studies have suggested that women remain under-represented in academic authorship. This study evaluates trends in female and male first and last authorship in six leading O&G journals ( Human Reproduction Update , American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Obstetrics and Gynecology , Gynecologic Oncology and Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology ) between January 2013 and December 2023. Methods A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science database. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using Genderize.io, with a probability threshold of ≥75% for classification. Binary logistic regression was performed to model the probability of authorship by gender across journals. Results Among 57 310 publications, 38 455 first (43.8% male and 56.2% female) and 38 950 last authors (58.6% male and 41.4% female) were identified and analysed. Over the past decade, female authorship has shown a clear upward trend, with first authorship increasing from 43% (1141/2636) in 2013 to 69% (2769/4036) in 2023, and last authorship increasing from 29% (770/2700) to 54% (2180/4047). First authorship was statistically more likely to be held by women in Human Reproduction Update (1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48), American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (1.63, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.70) and Obstetrics & Gynecology (2.33, 95% CI 2.22 to 2.45). However, female last authorship was significantly more likely only in Obstetrics & Gynecology (1.21, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27). Conclusion Despite an increasing trend in female representation in first and last authorships over the past decade, a significant gender disparity persists. While women now constitute the majority of first authors, last authorship remains disproportionately male, reflecting ongoing barriers to female leadership in O&G research. These findings highlight the need for targeted institutional efforts to promote gender equity in academic medicine.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results