PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.BibliometricsViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 44
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2026-06)
    Viswanathan, Jayalakshmi
    ;
    Karamacoska, Diana
    ;
    Thakur, Lokendra S.
    ;
    Sawan, Mouna
    ;
    Gomez‐Arboledas, Angela
    Abstract Introduction: Women are increasingly entering the dementia research workforce, but they frequently fail to attain senior leadership positions in academia. Discrepancies in academic research outputs were investigated to guide equity-focused policy recommendations. Methods: Bibliometrics was conducted on 400,482 original research articles (2003-2022) followed by surveying the AD/ADRD research community, to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate discrepancies in publication and authorship trends. In addition, an unsupervised learning algorithm was developed to analyze underlying relationships between author groups. Results: Male author gender was consistently predictive of better publication and citation metrics across all bibliometrics outcomes, with senior male authors outperforming all other subgroups and fewer senior female authors in most research areas. Female survey respondents reported more barriers, but comparable productivity and citation strategies as male authors. Discussion: Multi-pronged approaches by stakeholders across institutions, funders, and journals are necessary to provide career support for early-career scientists working to transition to senior research roles.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Closing the Gender Gap in Global Surgery: Trends at the Academic Surgical Congress Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Padmanaban, V.
    ;
    DaCosta, A.
    ;
    Tran, A.
    ;
    Kunac, A.
    ;
    Swaroop, M.
    Introduction: Female researchers are underrepresented in academic surgery. While they are increasingly producing original research, they lag male researchers in productivity. This disparity is not well understood within the nascent field of global surgery. The following study examines gender parity in global surgery research presented at the Academic Surgical Congress and within subsequent publications. Methods: Abstracts presented at the Academic Surgical Congress (ASC) between 2015 and 2019 in “Global Surgery” sessions were reviewed to obtain title, the first author (FA) and senior author (SA). The authors were classified by gender. The Scopus database was queried by two reviewers for abstracts with corresponding publications, citations, and journal impact factors. Statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square analysis and t-tests where appropriate. Results: Of a total of 6635 abstracts, 218 global surgery abstracts over a 5-year period were identified. Of these abstracts, 96 (44%) had female FAs, while 56 (26%) had female SAs. When comparing gender, female (44%) FAs and male (56%) FAs were equally represented. While SAs were significantly less likely to be female (26% versus 74%, P < 0.0001), female senior authorship increased significantly within the study period. Output with respect to publications, citations, and journal impact factors were equal by gender. Conclusions: This study presents 5 y of gender trends in global surgery scholarly work presented at the ASC. Despite an overall predominance of male senior authors, the paradigm is shifting with a recent trend to gender parity. Male and female authors have equal output and are equally impactful. Findings of gender equity in academic global surgery are encouraging, and further study of other disciplines are warranted. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF 
    (2018)
    O'Connor, Erin E.
    ;
    Chen, Pauline
    ;
    Weston, Brian
    ;
    Anderson, Redmond
    ;
    Zeffiro, Timothy
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
  • Item type:Publication,
    What's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Nygaard, L.P.
    ;
    Bahgat, K.
    A persistent finding in studies of research productivity is the ‘gender gap’ where men seem to publish more academic research than women. However, this gap varies widely from study to study, and little has been done to explore how these claims might be sensitive to what is being measured and how. Using a dataset of publications statistics spanning five years for a Norwegian social science research institute, this paper looks at how (and why) measuring productivity in different ways provides different pictures of the gender gap. Based on the situated context of the institute, we also disaggregate the data by staff category, methodological orientation, and language background, and consider the impact of leaves of absence. We find widely varying measures of the gender gap depending on how we measure and disaggregate, and argue that different bibliometric indicators capture different aspects of research performance, including diversity of output and collaboration, which reflect different publication practices that are both gendered and situated. We suggest that looking at academic writing as a situated - and gendered - social practice offers a potential for deriving more theoretically consistent explanations for both the seeming persistence of the gender gap and the wide contextual variations. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Systematic Review of Gender-Based Differences in Hirsch Index Among Academic Surgeons Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Myers, S.P.
    ;
    Reitz, K.M.
    ;
    Wessel, C.B.
    ;
    Neal, M.D.
    ;
    Corbelli, J.A.
    Background: The h-index is a commonly used bibliometric in academic medicine which enumerates the number of publications (h) that have been cited h times. Recent investigations have suggested that gender-based differences in h-index may exist among academic physicians. We systematically reviewed studies of academic surgeons’ h-index, hypothesizing that a significant difference would exist between the h-index of men and women at all academic ranks. Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles authored by academic surgeons of any subspecialization in the United States between January 1, 2006, and November 20, 2017, were reviewed. We excluded studies of trainees or gender-based differences in funding without mention of h-index. Two reviewers assessed article quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Pooled estimates of standard mean differences (SMD) in h-index between genders were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. A subgroup analysis based on the academic rank was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of study on h-index. Meta-regression identified whether surgical specialty contributed to heterogeneity. Results: Twelve articles comparing h-index between genders were selected from 7950. Men possessed higher h-indices than women (SMD, 0.547; P &lt; 0.001; I 2 = 89.5%). Men exhibited higher h-indices at the assistant rank (SMD, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.24; P = 0.039) but not at the associate (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.33; P = 0.165) or full professor (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to −0.31; P = 0.25) ranks. Conclusions: The h-index is higher for men than that for women in academic surgery overall but not at individual ranks. Further investigations are necessary to address limitations in h-index and to further characterize the relationship between h-index, gender, and promotion. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A bibliometric study of women researchers in early organizational structures of exact sciences and engineering in Mexico from 1900 to 2000 Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Morales, M.E.L.
    ;
    Morales, E.L.
    The scientific production of Mexico registered in Web of Science from 1900-2000 in the areas of Exact Sciences and Engineering is analyzed to describe the way in which female researchers are integrated in the development of these fields of study. The paper employs a quantitative bibliometric method, applying indicators of gender, scientific output and impact, and analysis of bibliometric networks of co-authorship. In Mexico, researchers in exact sciences and engineering published their first papers in the first half of the 20th century, but female researchers working in Syn-tex laboratories did not publish until the 1940s. As more women joined faculties in higher education and research centers in the 60s and 70s, publication by female researchers began to increase accordingly. This growth also appears to be associated with changes in career choice by women. While the contributions of this work represent an advantage for the scientific community itself, they also are useful for organizations that promote gender equity and institutions that integrate female researchers in this field of study. © 2018, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Molwitz, I.
    ;
    Yamamura, J.
    ;
    Ozga, A.-K.
    ;
    Wedekind, I.
    ;
    Nguyen, T.-A.
    Objectives: To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods: In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results: The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p <.0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p <.0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p <.0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p <.0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion: The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points: • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas. © 2021, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    High-Citation Papers in Space Physics: Examination of Gender, Country, and Paper Characteristics Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Moldwin, M.B.
    ;
    Liemohn, M.W.
    The number of citations to a refereed journal article from other refereed journal articles is a measure of its impact. Papers, individuals, journals, departments, and institutions are increasingly judged by the impact they have in their disciplines, and citation counts are now a relatively easy (though not necessarily accurate or straightforward) way of attempting to quantify impact. This study examines papers published in the Journal of Geophysical Research—Space Physics in the year 2012 (n = 705) and analyzes the characteristics of high-citation papers compared to low-citation papers. We find that high-citation papers generally have a large number of authors (>5) and cite significantly more articles in the reference section than low-citation papers. We also examined the gender and country of institution of the first author and found that there is not a statistically significant gender bias, but there are some significant differences in citation statistics between articles based on the country of first-author institution. ©2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Priority of Gender and Racial Disparity in Neurology Journals: A Bibliometric Analysis, 2016-2021 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Mohammed, S.
    ;
    Siddiqi, J.
    Introduction: Medicine and the field of neurology are not immune to gender and racial disparities present more broadly in society. Even within academia there remains a persistent lack of representation of women and racial minorities, but with the recent spotlight on discrimination it is more necessary than ever that prevailing disparities are acknowledged by medical journals and reflected in their publication priorities. This bibliometric study assesses whether social justice trends have influenced the number of articles published that discuss gender and racial disparity in the past 5 years within the top three leading neurological journals. Our assumption is that any trend towards more publications related to gender and racial disparities are reflective of the publication priorities of, and thus the perceived relevance to, the editorial boards of the chosen journals. Methods: Using key word search of "gender,""race,"and "disparity"in the title or context of published papers, the archives of Lancet Neurology, Nature Reviews Neurology, and Alzheimer's & Dementia were reviewed. Results: The results indicated that although there was a slight overall increase in coverage of the aforementioned topics, it was negligible compared to the broad impact of current social justice movements. Conclusion: Our data suggest an inadequate publication priority for scholarly work on gender and racial disparity in the chosen journals, over the latest 5 years reviewed. © 2022