PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.CitationsViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Fox, Charles W.
    ;
    Paine, C. E. Timothy
    The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer-review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer-review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer-review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of the gender differences in peer-review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer-review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Dermatology, 2018)
    Bendels, Michael H. K.
    ;
    Dietz, Michelle Cathrin
    ;
    Brüggmann, Dörthe
    ;
    Oremek, Gerhard Maximilian
    ;
    Schöffel, Norman
    Objective The present study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-quality dermatological research by analysing the representation of female authorships from January 2008 to May 2017. Design Retrospective, descriptive study. Setting 113 189 male and female authorships from 23 373 research articles published in 23 dermatological Q1 journals were analysed with the aid of the Gendermetrics Platform. Results 43.0% of all authorships and 50.2% of the firstauthorships, 43.7% of the coauthorships and 33.1% of the last authorships are held by women. The corresponding female-to-male ORs are 1.41 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.45) for first authorships, 1.07 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.10) for coauthorships and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62) for last authorships. The annual growth rates are 1.74% overall and 1.45% for first authorships, 1.53% for coauthorships and 2.97% for last authorships. Women are slightly under-represented at prestigious authorships compared with men (Prestige Index=−0.11). The under-representation remains stable in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multiauthor articles with male key authors are only slightly more frequently cited than those with female key authors. Women publish slightly fewer papers compared with men (47.2% women hold 43.0% of the authorships). At the level of individual journals, there is a high degree of uniformity in gender-specific authorship odds. By contrast, distinct differences at country level were revealed. The prognosis for the next decades forecasts a consecutive harmonisation of authorship odds between the two genders. Conclusions In high-quality dermatological research, the integration of female scholars is advanced as compared with other medical disciplines. A gender gap consists mainly in the form of a career dichotomy, with many female early career researchers and few women in academic leadership positions. However, this gender gap has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the future.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in highest quality medical research: A scientometric analysis of the representation of female authors in highest impact medical journals Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Bendels, M.H.K.
    ;
    Wanke, E.M.
    ;
    Benik, S.
    ;
    Schehadat, M.S.
    ;
    Schöffel, N.
    Objective The study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-impact medical research, analyzing the representation of female authorships from January, 2008 to September, 2017. Methods 133893 male and female authorships from seven high-impact medical journals were analyzed. The key methodology was the combined analysis of the relative frequency, odds ratio and citations of female authorships. The Prestige Index measures the distribution of prestigious authorships between the two genders. Results 35.0% of all authorships and 34.3% of the first, 36.1% of the co- and 24.2% of the last authorships were held by women. Female authors have an odds ratio of 0.97 (KI: 0.93-1.01) for first, 1.36 (KI: 1.32-1.40) for co- und 0.57 (KI: 0.54-0.60) for last authorships compared to male authors. The proportion of female authorships exhibits an annual growth of 1.3% overall, with 0.5% for first, 1.2% for co-, and 0.8% for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorship compared to men (Prestige Index=-0.38). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multi-author articles with male key authors are more frequently cited than articles with female key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.6% female authors are responsible for 35.0% of the authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 1 article per author. Distinct differences at the country level were revealed. Conclusion High impact medical research is characterized by few female group leaders as last authors and many female researchers being first or co-authors early in their career. It is very likely that this gender-specific career dichotomy will persistent in the next decade. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Stuttgart.New York.