PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Biomedical ResearchViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Visualization of gender, race, citizenship and academic performance in association with career outcomes of 15-year biomedical doctoral alumni at a public research university Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mathur, Ambika
    ;
    Cano, Annmarie
    ;
    Kohl, Michael
    ;
    Muthunayake, Nisansala S.
    ;
    Vaidyanathan, Prassanna
    It has long been thought that biomedical doctoral students pursue careers primarily as tenure-track/tenured faculty at research institutions. Recent reports showed, however, that the majority of biomedical doctoral alumni engage in a variety of careers. Wayne State University (WSU) undertook a project to understand the career trajectories of its biomedical doctoral alumni to create programs to better prepare its students for careers in multiple pathways. Data were collected on career outcomes of WSU's biomedical doctoral alumni who graduated in a 15-year period from 1999-2014. Careers were classified into three tiers by Employment Sector, Career Types and Job Functions and career paths were examined by alumni gender, race, U.S. citizenship status, and association with certain academic characteristics. Several statistically significant differences in career paths among all demographics were found. For example, women were more likely to be in teaching and providing healthcare, men in faculty and research; Black alumni pursued careers in Government at higher rates and Whites in For-Profit careers; Asians and non-U.S. citizens spent more time in training positions than others. There was no association of academic characteristics such as GRE, GPA, and Time-to-Degree completion with careers in the two largest sectors of Academia or For-profit. Since our trainees are engaged in this rich variety of careers essential to advancing biomedical science and research nationally, it is imperative for the graduate training community to embrace all careers as successful, and transform the model for biomedical doctoral training to foster student success across this broad career spectrum.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women Open PDF 
    (2024)
    James, Alex
    ;
    Buelow, Franca
    ;
    Gibson, Liam
    ;
    Brower, Ann
    We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Xiao, Nicholas
    ;
    Mansukhani, Neel A.
    ;
    Mendes de Oliveira, Diego F.
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    Importance: Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives: To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results: Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Gender Disparities in Authorship of Arthroplasty Research Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Xu, Raylin F.
    ;
    Varady, Nathan H.
    ;
    Chen, Antonia F.
    BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to address gender disparities in medicine, female representation in orthopaedics lags behind that of other fields, and little work has evaluated gender disparities within the subspecialty of arthroplasty surgery. The objective of this study was to analyze female authorship trends in arthroplasty research from 2002 to 2019. METHODS: Articles published from 2002 to 2019 in 12 clinical orthopaedic and arthroplasty journals were extracted from PubMed. Articles that provided the full name of the first author and contained the terms "arthroplasty," "hip replacement," "knee replacement," or "joint replacement" in the title and/or as keywords were analyzed. The gender of the author was determined with the validated Genderize algorithm, and publication trends were analyzed over time. Descriptive and comparative statistics were computed, and logistic regression was used to evaluate gender trends. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2019, 14,692 articles met the inclusion criteria, and the gender of 63,628 authors was identified. There were 23,626 unique authors; 4,003 (16.9%) were women and 19,623 (83.1%) were men. Female involvement in arthroplasty publications increased from 11.1% in 2002 to 12.6% in 2019 (p < 0.001), and the percentage of female first authors increased from 5.0% in 2002 to 11.3% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Critically, however, the proportion of women as senior authors significantly declined from 8.5% in 2002 to 6.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). From our analysis of U.S. publications with physician senior authors, the proportion of female senior authors remained relatively stable from 1.7% in 2002 to 2.4% in 2019 without a significantly increasing trend (p = 0.88). Overall, on average, women published a mean (and 95% confidence interval) of 1.9 ± 0.1 publications, while men published 2.9 ± 0.1 publications (p < 0.001). The proportion of female senior authors in arthroplasty publications (6.6%) was lower than that of other orthopaedic subspecialties such as sports medicine (9.2%), spine (13.6%), and foot and ankle (13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: While overall female representation and first authorship in arthroplasty literature have increased over time, the paucity of women in senior author roles remains troubling. Future studies should examine why the proportion of women publishing in arthroplasty remains lower than that in most other orthopaedic subspecialties.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias in rhinology research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    Background Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. Methods All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. Results There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM50) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM50 (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. Conclusion Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Polanco, Nathalie A. Pena
    ;
    McNally, Bridgette B.
    ;
    Levy, Cynthia
    ;
    Carey, Elizabeth J.
    ;
    Palomique, Juvelyn
    BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that gender differences in academic medicine exist. Men frequently have better measures of performance such as number of publications, number of citations, remuneration, and funding. AIMS: To evaluate whether a gender disparity in authorship exists. METHODS: We recorded the gender of first and senior authors of original papers, editorials/reviews from liver-related manuscripts in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Transplantation, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Liver Transplantation from January 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Of 2424 articles reviewed, we excluded 232 (10%) due to inability to determine gender. Among papers analyzed, 72.0% were original and 28.1% reviews/editorials with 65.1% of first authors being male and 34.9% female. Only 20.3% of papers with multiple authors had a female senior author. The proportion of male first and senior authorship between original papers and reviews/editorials was comparable. 72% of original papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 28% females. 71% of review/editorial papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 29% females. When the senior author of an original paper was female, 47.1% of first authors were male and 52.9% female. When the senior author was male, 67.1% of first authors were male and 32.9% female (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant gender difference exists in Hepatology publications. Female authorship mirrors the percentage of female AASLD membership; however, female senior authorship remains disproportionate. In general, funding for male authors is greater. Fewer women are first authors when the senior author is male, highlighting the importance of female mentorship in Hepatology.