PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Equality

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Meyer, A.
    ;
    Streichert, T.
    Background: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. Methods: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. Results: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. Conclusions: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively. © 2024 JMIR Publications Inc.. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Disparity in Female and Asian Representation Amongst Cardiology Journal Editorial Boards Members: A Call for Empowerment Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Lim, Oliver Z. H.
    ;
    Chen, Yundai
    ;
    Dimmeler, Stefanie
    ;
    Yong, Anthony W. J.
    ;
    Singh, Harpreet
    BACKGROUND: While progress is evident in gender and ethnic representation in the workplace, this disparity remains prevalent in academic positions. OBJECTIVES: We examined gender and Asian ethnic representation in editorial boards of cardiology journals. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using publicly available data on Cardiology and Cardiovascular medicine journals in first quartile of the 2020 Scimago Journal & Country Rank indicator. The proportions of female and Asian editorial board members, associate editors and editors-in-chief were assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the journal's geographical origin, subspecialty, and demographic of the editor-in-chief. RESULTS: Seventy-six cardiology journals, involving 8915 editorial board members, were included. Only 19.6% of editorial board members were female, 20.8% Asians, and 4.0% Asian females. There were less female representation amongst editors-in-chief (9.9%) compared to associate editors (22.3%). European (18.1%) and North American-based journals (21.1%) had higher female representation compared to Asian-based journals (8.7%). There was lower Asian representation in European (18.1%) and North American-based journals (19.9%) compared to Asian-based journals (72.3%). Females were underrepresented in interventional (14.5%) journals, while Asians were underrepresented in general cardiology (18.3%) and heart failure (18.3%) journals. Journals led by female editors-in-chief had significantly higher female representation compared to male-led ones, while journals with Asian editors-in-chief had greater Asian representation compared to non-Asian led ones. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the female and Asian ethnic underrepresentation in academic roles in cardiology journal editorial boards. Further analysis is needed for other ethnicities, while the community pushes towards gender-balanced and ethnic diversity across editorial boards.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contribution of women authors in French medical journals from 1983 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Schohn, A.
    ;
    Wathelet, M.
    ;
    Noël, G.
    Purpose: Despite the feminization of the medical profession, the academic world remains largely male-dominated. Several studies conducted in the English-speaking world have shown that women are published less than men. Our goal is to define the evolution of the role of women in five French medical journals. Materials and methods: The articles from five French journals (Revue du Praticien, Bulletin du Cancer, Exercer, Presse Médicale, Cancer/Radiothérapie) published in February between 1983 and 2019 were included. We selected twelve years from that period of time. The analysis was completed using Cochran-Armitage tests with a significance level of < 0,05. Among the authors, 4397 were included in total and we were able to determine the gender of 4309 of them. Results: The percentage of female authors went from 16% in 1983 to 36.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). This rise is more significant for those specializing in surgery than for those specializing in medicine, with a percentage going from 14% to 38.5% (p < 0.001) against 16.8% to 35.4% (p < 0.001) respectively. In 2019, women still only represent 30.2% of the last authors, 27.6% of editorial authors and 30.6% of corresponding authors. Conclusion: Our study underlines a significant increase in the number of female authors and highlights that their position as authors remains on the margins of the most prestigious authorial positions. While we can celebrate this increase, we nevertheless notice that there are fewer female authors than female practitioners. © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO)
  • Item type:Publication,
    21st century gender trends of authorship in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Reeves, Samuel
    ;
    Loke, Wee Lee
    ;
    Mullerat-Pigem, Maria
    ;
    Patel, Dhruvi
    ;
    Brennan, Peter A.
    Despite forming the majority in undergraduate medicine and dentistry programmes, females remain under-represented in all surgical specialties, including oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Efforts are ongoing to promote female uptake in surgery. Research output is a key metric in measuring leadership and academic advancement within a specialty. The aim of this study was to assess female authorship in research published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from 2000-2020 with a retrospective cohort study of original articles and reviews published in the journal from five different volumes of the journal (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 as representative time points). The gender of the first and last authors were assessed for gender by first name recognition and verified with a web-search of the author using their stated institutional affiliation when this was not clear. Articles were excluded if the gender of one of the first or last author could not be determined. A total of 501 articles were included with the gender of 1002 authors analysed. 173 (17.3%) authors were female, and 828 (82.7%) were male. The most common author combination was male-male (70.3%) and the least common female-female (4.8%). The proportion of female authors increased over time from 9.3% in 2000 to 23.4% in 2020. Females remain under-represented within surgery, but female presence in academic output is increasing at a similar rate to the numbers of female uptake in the clinical workforce which is a promising sign and indicative of progress towards gender parity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Giannos, P.
    ;
    Katsikas Triantafyllidis, K.
    ;
    Paraskevaidi, M.
    ;
    Kyrgiou, M.
    ;
    Kechagias, K.S.
    Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases (odds ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.71–1.00), where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost. © 2023 by the authors.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Renewal of academic psychiatry without addressing gender equity will render it Jurassic rather than endangered Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Galbally, M
    ;
    Eggleston, K
    ;
    Northwood, K
    ;
    Siskind, D
    ;
    Berk, M
    While two editorials have raised concerns about the decline in Australian academic psychiatry, for a genuine rejuvenation to ever occur, we will need to re-examine how women can be better included in this important endeavour. While attainment of fellowship has reached gender parity, academic psychiatry has disappointingly lagged, with 80% of its senior leadership roles across Australia and New Zealand still held by men, with a similar situation in the United Kingdom and the United States as well as many other countries. Encouraging women into academic psychiatry is not only critical to progress as a profession but also will help address the current blindness to sex differences in biological psychiatry, as well the social impact of restrictive gender norms and the effects of gender-based violence on mental health. This potentially creates opportunities for significant gains and insights into mental disorders. However, addressing the barriers for women in academia requires tackling the entrenched disparities across salaries, grant funding, publications, teaching responsibilities, keynote invitations and academic promotions alongside the gender-based microaggressions, harassment and tokenism reported by many of our female academics. Many women must grapple with not just a 'second shift' but a 'third shift', making the burden of an academic career unreasonable and burnout more likely. Addressing this is no easy task. The varied research in academic medicine reveals no quick fixes, although promoting gender equity brings significant potential benefits. Areas such as academic psychiatry need to recognise our community's growing discomfort with workplaces that choose to maintain status quo. Gender equity must be a critical part of any quest to revive this important area of practice for our profession.