PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 16
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Persistent gender disparity in leading dental publications across 4 decades: an observational study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Moreno, Laura Barreto
    ;
    Franco, Marina Christ
    ;
    Karam, Sarah Arangurem
    ;
    van de Sande, Françoise Hélène
    ;
    Montagner, Anelise Fernandes
    OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the differences in the gender of the first and last authors in the most-cited dental articles over the last 4 decades. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Articles were obtained through an electronic search of the most-cited articles in dentistry by decade (total n = 400 articles). The 100 most-cited studies in each decade (1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, and 2010-2019), with any study design, with results in dentistry were eligible. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using the Genderize database. Comparative evaluation of gender distribution in general and across the 4 decades was performed with the Chi-square test, and the contribution of variables on the citation rate of articles was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: There were statistical differences between the gender distributions, with a predominance of men in the first (83.8%) and the last (86.8%) positions (P < .001). Over the decades, there was a tendency for an increase in the proportion of women as the last author (P = .002; Chi-square trend Test), with an increase of women from 6% to 22% across the last 4 decades. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the genders for the first author in the last 4 decades (P = .163; Chi-square trend Test). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that men lead a large percentage of the most-cited articles in dentistry and that this trend has not shown substantial modifications over the last years. Nonetheless, for the position of last authorship, an increase in women's representativity was observed over the last decades.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Reflections on Gender Analyses of Bibliographic Corpora Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Mihaljević, H.
    ;
    Tullney, M.
    ;
    Santamaría, L.
    ;
    Steinfeldt, C.
    The interplay between an academic's gender and their scholarly output is a riveting topic at the intersection of scientometrics, data science, gender studies, and sociology. Its effects can be studied to analyze the role of gender in research productivity, tenure and promotion standards, collaboration and networks, or scientific impact, among others. The typical methodology in this field of research is based on a number of assumptions that are customarily not discussed in detail in the relevant literature, but undoubtedly merit a critical examination. Presumably the most confronting aspect is the categorization of gender. An author's gender is typically inferred from their name, further reduced to a binary feature by an algorithmic procedure. This and subsequent data processing steps introduce biases whose effects are hard to estimate. In this report we describe said problems and discuss the reception and interplay of this line of research within the field. We also outline the effect of obstacles, such as non-availability of data and code for transparent communication. Building on our research on gender effects on scientific publications, we challenge the prevailing methodology in the field and offer a critical reflection on some of its flaws and pitfalls. Our observations are meant to open up the discussion around the need and feasibility of more elaborated approaches to tackle gender in conjunction with analyses of bibliographic sources. Copyright © 2019 Mihaljević, Tullney, Santamaría and Steinfeldt.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bias in peer review Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Lee, Carole J.
    ;
    Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
    ;
    Zhang, Guo
    ;
    Cronin, Blaise
    Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Distribution Associated With the Journal Wilderness & Environmental Medicine Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Keyes, Linda E.
    ;
    Schlein, Sarah M.
    ;
    Brown, Alainna B.
    ;
    Polukoff, Natalya E.
    ;
    Byrne, Alicia
    INTRODUCTION: Publication and peer review are fundamental to career advancement in science and academic medicine. Studies demonstrate that women are underrepresented in science publishing. We evaluated the gender distribution of contributors to Wilderness & Environmental Medicine (WEM) from 2010 through 2019. METHODS: We extracted author data from ScienceDirect, reviewer data from the WEM Editorial Manager database, and editorial board data from journal records. Gender (female and male) was classified using automated probability-based assessment with Genderize.io software. RESULTS: A total of 2297 unique authors were published over the 10-y span, generating 3613 authorships, of which gender was classified for 96% (n=3480). Women represented 26% (n=572) of all authors, which breaks down to 22% of all, 19% of first, 28% of second, and 18% of last authorships. Women represented 20% of peer reviewers (508/2517), 20% of reviewers-in-training (19/72), and 16% of editorial board members (7/45). The proportion of female authors, first authors, and reviewers increased over time. Women received fewer invitations per reviewer than men (mean 2.1 [95% CI 2.0-2.3] vs 2.4 [95% CI 2.3-2.5]; P=0.004), accepted reviews at similar rates (mean 73 vs 71%; P=0.214), and returned reviews 1.4 d later (mean 10.4 [CI 9.5-11.3] vs 9.0 d [95% CI 8.5-9.6]; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: While female representation increased over the study period, women comprise a minority of WEM authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Gender equity could be improved by identifying and eliminating barriers to participation, addressing any potential bias in review processes, implementing strategies to increase female-authored submissions, and increasing mentorship and training.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kern-Goldberger, Adina R.
    ;
    James, Richard
    ;
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    ;
    Miller, Emily S.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Lifting as we climb: Experiences and recommendations from women in neural engineering Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Jantz, Maria K.
    ;
    Mak, Jennifer
    ;
    Dalrymple, Ashley N.
    ;
    Farooqui, Juhi
    ;
    Grigsby, Erinn M.
    Neural engineering is an emerging and multidisciplinary field in which engineering approaches are applied to neuroscience problems. Women are underrepresented in engineering fields, and indeed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields generally. Underrepresentation of women is particularly notable at later academic career stages, suggesting that even though women are interested in the field, barriers exist that ultimately cause them to leave. Here, we investigate many of the obstacles to women's success in the field of neural engineering and provide recommendations and materials to overcome them. We conducted a review of the literature from the past 15 years regarding the experiences of women in academic careers, as well as reports on the number of women in fields closely related to neural engineering from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Additionally, we interviewed six women in neural engineering who are involved in initiatives and outreach concerning the inclusion and experiences of women in engineering. Throughout the literature and interviews, we identified common themes spanning the role of identity and confidence, professional relationships, career-related hurdles, and personal and professional expectations. We explore each of these themes in detail and provide resources to support the growth of women as they climb within the field of neural engineering.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Geographical and gender inequalities in health sciences studies: testing differences in research productivity, impact and visibility Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Goyanes, M.
    ;
    Demeter, M.
    ;
    Háló, G.
    ;
    Arcila-Calderón, C.
    ;
    Gil de Zúñiga, H.
    Purpose: Gender and geographical imbalance in production and impact levels is a pressing issue in global knowledge production. Within Health Sciences, while some studies found stark gender and geographical biases and inequalities, others found little empirical evidence of this marginalization. The purpose of the study is to clear the ambiguity concerning the topic. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Health Sciences research data downloaded from the Scival (Scopus/Scimago) database from 2017 to 2020 (n = 7,990), this study first compares gender representation in research productivity, as well as differences in terms of citation per document, citations per document view and view per document scores according to geographical location. Additionally, the study clarifies whether there is a geographic bias in productivity and impact measures (i.e. citation per document, citations per document view and view per document) moderated by gender. Findings: Results indicate that gender inequalities in productivity are systematic at the overall disciplinary, as well as the subfield levels. Findings also suggest statistically significant geographical differences in citation per document, citations per document view, and view per document scores, and interaction effect of gender over the relation between geography and (1) the number of citations per view and (2) the number of views per document. Originality/value: This study contributes to scientometric studies in health sciences by providing insightful findings about the geographical and gender bias in productivity and impact across world regions. © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Williams, Wadsworth A.
    ;
    Garvey, Katherine L.
    ;
    Goodman, Denise M.
    ;
    Lauderdale, Diane S.
    ;
    Ross, Lainie Friedman
    OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender bias in the refereeing process? Open PDF 
    (2002)
    Tregenza, Tom
    Scientists are measured by their publications. Yet anonymous peer review is far from transparent. Does bias lurk within the refereeing process? Investigating the outcomes of manuscript submissions suggests that the overall process is not sexist, but differences in acceptance rates across journals according to gender of the first author give grounds for caution. Manuscripts with more authors and by native English speakers are more successful; whether this is due to bias remains to be seen.