PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.AcademiaViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of psychiatric research excellence: Analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2 % scholars worldwide (2017–2023) Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-02)
    Riad, Abanoub
    ;
    Alkasaby, Muhammad
    ;
    Changchroenkul, Nisarat
    ;
    Koščík, Michal
    Background Research excellence is increasingly used as a benchmark for academic evaluation in medical sciences, including psychiatry. However, bibliometric analyses often prioritize productivity over quality. This study examined national, institutional, and individual determinants of psychiatric research excellence using a multi-level ecological framework. Methods We analyzed the Stanford–Elsevier Lists of the top 2 % scholars (2017–2023), incorporating 51 independent variables. These included: (a) national determinants grouped into five domains (mental healthcare, gender equity, socioeconomic development, budgetary policies, and disease burden), (b) institutional factors derived from global and discipline-specific rankings, and (c) individual factors of gender and academic age. The primary outcome was the number of excellent psychiatric scholars (EPS), with secondary indicators including citation counts, modified H-index, composite score, and self-citation share. Results Psychiatric research excellence was concentrated in high-income, English-speaking countries, with significant institutional elitism. A small number of institutions hosted a disproportionate share of EPS. Gender disparities persisted, with female representation negatively associated with national gender gaps in employment and education, but positively linked to government spending on education. Academic age positively correlated with citation-based performance metrics. Multivariable models confirmed the explanatory roles of gender, academic age, official language, gender equity, and human development. Conclusion Psychiatric research excellence reflects systemic advantages related to income, language, institutional prestige, and gender equity. Equitable funding, support for emerging research environments, and expanded international collaboration are essential to fostering broader participation in high-impact psychiatric research.
  • 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, Reshma
    ;
    Andersen, Jens Peter
    Publications 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,
    Reliability and Validity Evidence for an Academic Gender Equity Questionnaire
    (2023)
    Warholak, T
    ;
    Barner, JC
    ;
    Unni, E
    ;
    Thomas, TF
    ;
    Devraj, R
    Objective. The majority of practicing pharmacists and student pharmacists are women. However, instru-ments to assess perceptions of gender equity within pharmacy academia are not available. The objective of this research was to describe the psychometric analysis of a questionnaire developed to assess gender equity by a Gender Equity Task Force and to report reliability and validity evidence.Methods. A questionnaire with 21 items addressing the teaching, research, service, advancement, men-toring, recruitment, and gender of college leaders was created. The survey was distributed via email in December 2020 to all social and administrative science section members of two professional associations. Rasch analysis was performed to evaluate the reliability and validity evidence for the questionnaire.Results. After reverse coding, all items met parameters for unidimensionality necessary for Rasch analysis. Once adjacent categories were merged to create a 3-point scale, the scale and items met parameters for appropriate functionality. Items were ordered hierarchically in order of difficulty. The modified instrument and scale can be treated as interval level data for future use.Conclusion. This analysis provides reliability and validity evidence supporting use of the gender equity questionnaire in the social and administrative academic pharmacy population if recommended edits such as the 3-point scale are used. Future research on gender equity can benefit from use of a psychometrically sound questionnaire for data collection.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence Open PDF 
    (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2020)
    Skov, Torsten
    Implicit or unconscious bias is commonly proposed to be responsible for women’s underrepresentation in academia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and discuss the evidence supporting this proposition. Publications about unconscious/implicit gender bias in academia indexed in Scopus or psycInfo up to February 2020 were identified. More than half were published in the period 2018–2020. Studies reporting empirical data were scrutinized for data, as well as analyses showing an association of a measure of implicit or unconscious bias and lesser employment or career opportunities in academia for women than for men. No studies reported empirical evidence as thus defined. Reviews of unconscious bias identified via informal searches referred exclusively to studies that did not self-identify as addressing unconscious bias. Reinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies were common in these reviews. More empirical evidence about unconscious gender bias in academia is needed. With the present state of knowledge, caution should be exercised when interpreting data about gender gaps in academia. Ascribing observed gender gaps to unconscious bias is unsupported by the scientific literature.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Digital technology helps remove gender bias in academia Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Fortin, J.
    ;
    Bartlett, B.
    ;
    Kantar, M.
    ;
    Tseng, M.
    ;
    Mehrabi, Z.
    Science attempts to be a meritocracy; however, in recent years, there has been increasing evidence for systematic gender bias against women. This bias is present in many metrics commonly used to evaluate scientific productivity, which in turn influences hiring and career success. Here we explore a new metric, the Altmetric Attention Score, and find no evidence of bias across many major journals (Nature, PNAS, PLOS One, New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, and BioRxiv), with equal attention afforded to articles authored by men and women alike. The exception to this rule is the journal Science, which has marked gender bias against women in 2018, equivalent to a mean of 88 more tweets or 11 more news articles and a median of 20 more tweets or 3 more news articles for male than female first authors. Our findings qualify Altmetric, for many types and disciplines of journals, as a potentially unbiased measure of science communication in academia and suggest that new technologies, such as those on which Altmetric is based, might help to democratize academic evaluation. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and bibliometrics: A review
    (De Gruyter Saur, 2020)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    This study provides a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the main bibliometric indicators in relation to gender and the underlying factors which have an effect on the research productivity and impact of female and male scholars. The main indicators studied in the literature were the number of publications, the number of citations, self-citations, Journal Impact Factor, h-Index, authorship positions, and collaboration patterns. The literature on the visibility of scholars from the point of social media metrics has also been appraised. Underlying factors have a complex and inconclusive impact on productivity. The literature was divided into two groups, based on personal and structural factors. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All rights reserved.