PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender in 30 Years of IEEE Visualization Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Tovanich, N.
    ;
    Dragicevic, P.
    ;
    Isenberg, P.
    We present an exploratory analysis of gender representation among the authors, committee members, and award winners at the IEEE Visualization (VIS) conference over the last 30 years. Our goal is to provide descriptive data on which diversity discussions and efforts in the community can build. We look in particular at the gender of VIS authors as a proxy for the community at large. We consider measures of overall gender representation among authors, differences in careers, positions in author lists, and collaborations. We found that the proportion of female authors has increased from 9% in the first five years to 22% in the last five years of the conference. Over the years, we found the same representation of women in program committees and slightly more women in organizing committees. Women are less likely to appear in the last author position, but more in the middle positions. In terms of collaboration patterns, female authors tend to collaborate more than expected with other women in the community. All non-gender related data is available on https://osf.io/ydfj4/ and the gender-Author matching can be accessed through https://nyu.databrary.org/volume/1301. © 1995-2012 IEEE.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientometric Analysis of Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Gender Trends in 30 Years of IEEE VIS Publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sarvghad, A.
    ;
    Franqui-Nadal, R.
    ;
    Reznik-Zellen, R.
    ;
    Chawla, R.
    ;
    Mahyar, N.
    We present the results of a scientometric analysis of 30 years of IEEE VIS publications between 1990-2020, in which we conducted a multifaceted analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration and gender composition among authors. To this end, we curated BiblioVIS, a bibliometric dataset that contains rich metadata about IEEE VIS publications, including 3032 papers and 6113 authors. One of the main factors differentiating BiblioVIS from similar datasets is the authors' gender and discipline data, which we inferred through iterative rounds of computational and manual processes. Our analysis shows that, by and large, inter-institutional and interdisciplinary collaboration has been steadily growing over the past 30 years. However, interdisciplinary research was mainly between a few fields, including Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, and Medicine and Health disciplines. Our analysis of gender shows steady growth in women's authorship. Despite this growth, the gender distribution is still highly skewed, with men dominating (~75%) of this space. Our predictive analysis of gender balance shows that if the current trends continue, gender parity in the visualization field will not be reached before the third quarter of the century (~2070). Our primary goal in this work is to call the visualization community's attention to the critical topics of collaboration, diversity, and gender. Our research offers critical insights through the lens of diversity and gender to help accelerate progress towards a more diverse and representative research community. IEEE
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues and approaches Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Fox, M.F.
    In the social study of science, gender is a critical research site because relations of gender are hierarchical and inequality is a central feature of science. The focus here is on a key dimension of gender and scientific careers: academic rank, particularly that of full professor. This article concentrates on quantitative and qualitative approaches that have occurred in two focal problem areas related to gender, science, and rank: collaboration patterns and evaluative practices. The approaches encompass analyses of large and small groups and comparative cases, with surveys, bibliometrics, experiments, and interviews. This breadth of approaches reflects a search for explanations of the pervasive and persistent relationships between gender and academic rank. The analyses presented here point to the complexities of gender disparities in collaboration. These appear in team compositions, divisions of labor and power dynamics, integration into departmental units, and international coauthorship. The analyses also reveal ways that limited clarity in evaluation bears on gender disparities. Continuing understandings of gender, science, and rank will result in multi level analyses: those at organizational levels along with those of individual scientists. © 2020 Mary Frank Fox. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Collaboration Metrics Among Female and Male Researchers: A 5-Year Review of Publications in Major Radiology Journals Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Campbell, James C.
    ;
    Yoon, Sora C.
    ;
    Grimm, Lars J.
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Women are under-represented in radiology, but the implications of this under-representation are poorly understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if articles published by women in major radiology journals were more collaborative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following an institutional review board exemption, we reviewed all original research articles in Radiology, in the American Journal of Roentgenology, and in Academic Radiology from 2011 to 2015. For each article, the gender of the first and the last authors and proxy measures of collaboration were recorded, including the total number of authors, female authors, departments, and institutions. Nominal logistic regression analysis was used to test for associations while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: There were 1934 articles analyzed. Female first and last authors represented 30.2% (585 of 1934) and 24.4% (473 of 1934) of the articles, respectively. A female first author was associated with more female last authors (36% vs 20%, P < .001), total female authors (2.9 vs 1.2, P < .001), and departments (3.3 vs 3.0, P < .001). Similarly, a female last author was associated with more female first authors (44% vs 26%, P = .001), total female authors (3.1 vs 1.2, P < .001), departments (3.5 vs 3.0 P < .001), and institutions (2.3 vs 1.9, P = .006). Each additional female author increased the mean number of institutions by 0.33 and departments by 0.46 on linear regression. First- or last-author gender was not associated with total authors (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Original research articles published with a female first or last author were associated with more departments and institutions, but not with the total number of authors, suggesting that women engage in some metrics of more collaborative research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gaps in international research collaboration: a bibliometric approach Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Aksnes, Dag W.
    ;
    Piro, Fredrik Niclas
    ;
    Rørstad, Kristoffer
    This paper addresses gender differences in international research collaboration measured through international co-authorship. The study is based on a dataset consisting of 5600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a 3-year period (44,000 publications). Two different indicators are calculated. First, the share of researchers that have been involved in international collaboration as measured by co-authorship, and second, the share of their publications with international co-authorship. The study shows that the field of research is by far the most important factor influencing the propensity to collaborate internationally. There are large differences from humanities on the one hand, where international collaboration in terms of co-authorship is less common, to the natural sciences on the other, where such collaboration is very frequent. On an overall level, we find distinct gender differences in international research collaboration in Norway in the favour of men. However, men and women are not equally distributed across fields and there are relatively more female researchers in fields where the international collaboration rates generally are lower. When the data are analysed by scientific field, academic position, and publication productivity of the researchers, the gender differences in the propensity to collaborate with colleagues in other countries are minor only, and not statistically significant. Concerning gender inequality in science, the main challenge seems to be the lower productivity level of female researchers, which obviously hinders their academic career development. Differences in international collaboration are unlikely to be an important factor in this respect, at least not in the Norwegian research context analysed in this study.