PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Altmetrics

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Alternative metrics, traditional problems? Assessing gender dynamics in the altmetrics of political science Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Meibauer, G.
    ;
    Phull, K.
    ;
    Alejandro, A.
    ;
    Ciflikli, G.
    Altmetrics are an emerging form of bibliometric measurement that capture the online dimension of scholarly exchange. Against the backdrop of both a higher education landscape increasingly focused on quantifying research productivity and impact, as well as literature emphasising the need to address gender bias in the discipline, we consider whether and how altmetrics (re)produce gendered dynamics in political science. Using a novel dataset on the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) of political science research, we investigate two questions: Do AAS vary by gender? And how do AAS relate to gendered social media dynamics? We find that AAS reproduce gendered dynamics found in disciplinary publication and citation practices. For example, journal articles authored exclusively by female scholars score 27% lower on average than exclusively male-authored outputs. However, men are also more likely to write articles with an AAS of zero. These patterns are shaped by the presence of high-scoring male “superstars” whose research attracts much online attention. Complementing existing scholarship, we show that the AAS closely overlaps with virality dynamics on Twitter. We suggest that these gendered dynamics may be hidden behind the seemingly neutral, technical character of altmetrics, which is worrisome where they are used to evaluate scholarship. © 2023, European Consortium for Political Research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Thelwall, M.
    There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in scientific productivity and visibility in core neurosurgery journals: Citations and social media metrics
    (2018)
    Sotudeh, H.
    ;
    Dehdarirad, T.
    ;
    Freer, J.
    Social media has provided new opportunities for both female and male academics to disseminate their research results, and presence on the Internet is found to increase the visibility of scholars. Thus, this study examined whether there were differences in terms of scientific productivity or the visibility (both in terms of citations and social media metrics) of female and male scholars in the field of neurosurgery. To do this, 11,127 articles and reviews from 2012 to 2014 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. This accounted for 14,944 unique authors. To study the visibility of neurosurgery scholars in terms of social media metrics, the following altmetric indicators were used: Mendeley readers, the post count of news, tweets, blogs, LinkedIn, and Facebook. The methodology and procedures employed included descriptive statistics, chi-square test, two-sample proportion test, and analysis of covariance. The results demonstrated that the number of female scholars was significantly lower compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, female neurosurgery scientists were found to be slightly less prolific in terms of scientific productivity. However, women were slightly more visible with regard to citations, readership, and tweets. Finally, both genders were similarly successful in terms of receivingmentions from blogs, news, Facebook, or LinkedIn. © The Author(s) 2018.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Woman authorship in pre-print versus peerreviewed oral health-related publications: A two-year observational study Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Rajendran, L.
    ;
    Khandelwal, N.
    ;
    Feine, J.
    ;
    Ioannidou, E.
    Objectives Women in oral health science face similar societal issues and challenges as those in other STEMM careers, and gender disparities continue to exist as evidenced by fewer women represented as first and last authors in scientific publications. Pre-prints may serve as a conduit to immediately disseminating one's work, bypassing the arduous peer review process and its associated inherent biases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to 1] compare the gender of first and last authors in pre-print versus peer reviewed publications, 2] examine the composition of first and last author pairs as stratified by publication type, and 3] examine the correlation between woman authorship and institutional geographic location and publication metrics stratified by publication type. Methods The keyword "oral health"was used to search for publications in BioRxiv and Pubmed in the years 2018 and 2019. Gender of first and last authors were determined, and its frequency was considered as the primary outcome. Additionally, the geographic location of the author's associated institution and publication metrics measured by Altmetrics score were extracted. Data was descriptively summarized by frequencies and percentages. Chi-square analysis was conducted for categorical variables which included the relationship between gender and publication type as well as gender and region of author's associated institution. Binomial regression analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between gender and Altmetrics. Results Woman first authors comprised 40.3% of pre-prints and 64.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. Woman last authors comprised 31.3% of pre-prints and 61.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. When analyzing the relationships between first and last author, the Man-Man pairing represented 47.7% of the pre-print publications and the Woman-Woman pairing comprised a majority of the of the peer review publications at 47.5%. All results were statistically significant with a p-value <0.05. No significant correlation was found between region of institution or Altmetrics and gender of first or last authors [p>0.05]. Conclusion For the first time in oral health science, it was found that women show higher representation as first and last author positions in peer reviewed publications versus pre-prints. © 2021 Rajendran et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • 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.