PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 27

Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons Open PDF
(Academic Press Inc., 2016)
Mueller, C.M.
;
Gaudilliere, D.K.
;
Kin, C.
;
Menorca, R.
;
Girod, S.
Background Female surgeons have faced significant challenges to promotion over the past decades, with attrition rates supporting a lack of improvement in women's position in academia. We examine gender disparities in research productivity, as measured by the number of citations, publications, and h-indices, across six decades. Materials and methods The online profiles of full-time faculty members of surgery departments of three academic centers were reviewed. Faculty members were grouped into six cohorts by decade, based on year of graduation from medical school. Differences between men and women across cohorts as well as by academic rank were examined. Results The profiles of 978 surgeons (234 women and 744 men) were reviewed. The number of female faculty members in the institutions increased significantly over time, reaching the current percentage of 35.3%. Significant differences in number of articles published were noted at the assistant and full but not at the associate, professor level. Women at these ranks had fewer publications than men. Gender differences were also found in all age cohorts except among the most recent who graduated in the 2000s. The impact of publications, as measured by h-index and number of citations, was not consistently significantly different between the genders at any age or rank. Conclusions We identified a consistent gender disparity in the number of publications for female faculty members across a 60-year span. Although the youngest cohort, those who graduated in the 2000s, appeared to avoid the gender divide, our data indicate that overall women still struggle with productivity in the academic arena. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF
(2024)
Meyer, A.
;
Streichert, T.
Background: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. Methods: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. Results: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. Conclusions: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively. © 2024 JMIR Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
Gender Disparities in Authorships of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia Research Articles Open PDF
(IOS Press, 2019)
Menzel, L.C.
;
Kramer, P.W.
;
Groneberg, D.A.
;
Bendels, M.H.K.
Background: Alzheimer's disease and dementia are an increasing burden affecting more than 50 million patients worldwide. Hence, research has increased significantly in recent decades. It is recognized that female authors are systematically underrepresented in research in general. Objective: In this article, we examine gender disparities in academic research on dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the last decade. Methods: 104,858 male and female authorships from 37,961 original research articles were analyzed. The global and country-specific distribution of women across first, co, and last authorships was determined with the inclusion of a citation and productivity analysis. Results: 42.1% of all authorships and 50.2% of the first, 42.2% of the co, and 32.8% of the last authorships were held by women. Women were less commonly cited, published fewer articles and were also less likely to secure prestigious authorships in articles with multiple authors compared with men. Distinct differences were observed among the countries. Conclusion: Substantial growth in the number of prestigious female authorships has been observed to date and is predicted to continue in the future, with an emphasis on the progressive representation of women and a diminishing gender gap. © 2019 - IOS Press and the authors.
Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2023)
Kyarunts, M.
;
Michaelcheck, C.E.
;
Kobeissi, H.
;
Kallmes, D.F.
;
Agid, R.
Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology. Methods: Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes. Results: The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Academic medicine’s glass ceiling: Author’s gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success Open PDF
(Public Library of Science, 2022)
Krstacic, J.E.
;
Carr, B.M.
;
Yaligar, A.R.
;
Kuruvilla, A.S.
;
Helali, J.S.
Introduction In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). Materials and methods Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. Results Compared to 37.23% of 2002 – 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women’s first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and coauthors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). Discussion Since 2002, this authorship “gender disparity chasm” has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet’s 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation. © 2022 Krstacic 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.
Gender disparities in prosthodontics: Authorship and leadership, 13 years of observation Open PDF
(2010)
Kongkiatkamon, S.
;
Yuan, J.C.-C.
;
Lee, D.J.
;
Knoernschild, K.L.
;
Campbell, S.D.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine gender disparities in prosthodontics by reviewing the trend of female authorship in prosthodontic journals and exploring the role of female leadership in prosthodontic organizations and Advanced Education in Prosthodontic (AEP) programs.Materials and Methods: Three journals representing the prosthodontic specialty were selected to analyze the percentage of female dentist first and last (senior) authors for the years 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2008. Article inclusion criteria were restricted to the first or last authors who held at least a DMD/DDS/BDS degree and were from U.S. institutions. Data on female leadership in prosthodontic organizations and advanced education programs were collected, and the trends were studied. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the proportion of female authorship compared to male in the dental literature. A Fisher's Exact Test was performed to contrast differences of female first and last authorship in the selected journals between years 1995 and 2008.Results: Overall, there was no statistically significant linear increase in the proportion of either first or last female authorship compared to male authorship over time. With respect to each journal, the linear regression analysis showed that the increase of first female authorship was statistically significant (p = 0.016) compared to male authorship only in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The percentage of female presidents of prosthodontic organizations has been very limited. A similar trend was also observed in AEP program director positions.Conclusions: Over the past 13 years, female dentists' participation in prosthodontics literature authorship has not increased significantly in the United States. Furthermore, female involvement in prosthodontics leadership has been limited over the past decades. © 2010 by The American College of Prosthodontists.
A gender gap in the next generation of physician-scientists: Medical student interest and participation in research Open PDF
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2002)
Guelich, J.M.
;
Singer, B.H.
;
Castro, M.C.
;
Rosenberg, L.E.
Background: For 2 decades, the number of physician-scientists has not kept pace with the overall growth of the medical research community. Concomitantly, the number of women entering medical schools has increased markedly. We have explored the effect of the changing gender composition of medical schools on the present and future pipeline of young physician-scientists. Methods: We analyzed data obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute pertaining to the expressed research intentions or research participation of male and female medical students in the United States. Results: A statistically significant decline in the percentage of matriculating and graduating medical students-both men and women-who expressed strong research career intentions occurred during the decade between 1987 and 1997. Moreover, matriculating and graduating women were significantly less likely than men to indicate strong research career intentions. Each of these trends has been observed for medical schools overall and for research-intensive ones. Cohort data obtained by tracking individuals from matriculation to graduation revealed that women who expressed strong research career intentions upon matriculation were more likely than men to decrease their research career intentions during medical school. Medical student participation in research supported the gender gap identified by assessing research intentions. Female medical student participation in the Medical Scientist Training Program and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute/National Institutes of Health-sponsored Cloisters Program has increased but lags far behind the growth in the female population in medical schools. Conclusion: Three worrisome trends in the research career intentions and participation of the nation's medical students (a decade-long decline for both men and women, a large and persistent gender gap, and a negative effect of the medical school experience for women) presage a further decline in the physician-scientist pipeline unless they are reversed promptly and decisively.
Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank Open PDF
(2022)
Goswami, Abhishek K.
;
Kokabi, Nima
;
Khaja, Minhaj S.
;
Saad, Wael E.
;
Khaja, Akram
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties. PURPOSE: To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi2 while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP. CONCLUSION: Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty. KEY RESULTS: ● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.
Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology Authorship: A 13-Year Review Open PDF
(Elsevier Inc., 2022)
Xiao, N.
;
Marquez-Karry, R.
;
Oliveira, D.F.M.
;
Berggruen, S.
;
Horowitz, J.M.
Rationale and Objectives: Underrepresentation of women in many scientific fields has been linked to biases against female-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, thereby reducing their opportunities for career development and promotions. The objective of this study is to determine the representation of female academic radiologists in four flagship general radiology journals to elucidate gender-specific trends and disparities in academic radiology. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 23,741 peer-reviewed articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology and Academic Radiology from 2007 to 2020. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for author gender, first and last authorship, research funding, and number of citations and grants. Baseline demographics data of academic radiologists was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Results: A total of 72.4% of authors were male with 54% of articles were written by a male first author and male last author. When compared with assumed random pairing, there were significantly fewer Male/Female author combinations and more Female/Female author combinations than expected (p<0.01). Over the 13-year time period, the rate of increase in the number of female authors exceeded the rate of increase in women in academic radiology as reported by the AAMC. Female last authors received on average 3.2 less citations than their male counterparts (p=.03). Of manuscripts with last female authors, 31.7% of female last authors were funded compared to 25.9% of last male authors. Conclusion: This study showed the increasing numbers and higher productivity of female authors in academic radiology, suggesting progress is being made in overcoming gender disparities. © 2022 The Association of University Radiologists
Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC? Open PDF
(Australasian Medical Publishing Co. Ltd, 1998)
Ward, J.E.
;
Donnelly, N.
Objective: To assess whether there is gender bias in the allocation of research fellowships granted by the Research Fellowships Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Data sources: Anonymous data from applications for a research fellowship from 1994 to 1997. Results: More men than women apply for research fellowships (sex ratio, 2.5:1), but there is no difference in the proportion of male or female applicants who succeed in their application. Among new applicants, men tend to apply for a higher level of fellowship than women. Conclusions: Lack of data about the numbers of eligible men and women means that we cannot draw conclusions about self-selection biases among potential applicants. However, the selection procedures of the Committee appear to be unbiased. The gender of applicants does not influence the outcome of their application.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results