PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11

Shattering the Glass Scalpel: Analyzing Female Representation in Orthopedic Surgery Across the United States Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-03-05)
Loyst, Rachel A
;
Hidalgo Perea, Sofia
;
Vanhelmond, Taylor
;
Patterson, Diana
Background Orthopedic surgery has historically been a male-dominated field, with slower growth in female participation compared to other surgical specialties. The present study aims to assess the extent of this influence, examine whether the dynamic is changing, and further analyze female participation trends, focusing on various regions of the United States and including analyses of female residents. Methodology Orthopedic surgery residency programs were surveyed online. A list of 200 programs was sourced from the Association of American Medical Colleges, which provided details including the program names, cities, states, regions, and website links. The homepages of the residency program as well as the department of orthopedic surgery were surveyed for any mention of women or female in orthopedics, number of female residents, total number of residents (class of 2025-2029), number of female faculty operative orthopedic faculty, total number of operative orthopedic faculty physicians, specialty of the female orthopedic faculty, program director gender, assistant program director gender, and chair of the program gender. Data analyses were performed using SPSS Software version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Rstudio version 1.4.1106 (Boston, MA, USA). Results In total, 55 Midwest (28%), 53 Northeast (27%), 63 South (32%), and 27 West (14%) orthopedic surgery residency programs were included. Female orthopedic surgery residents comprised 23.7% of all orthopedic residents across the United States. When analyzed by geographic region, female residents comprised 22.7% of all residents in the Midwest, 24.3% in the Northeast, 22.5% in the South, and 27.0% in the West. In the Northeast region, there was a notable upward trend in the percentage of female residents across PGY5 to PGY1 years (τ = 1, p = 0.027). A total of 25 (12.6%) programs had a section in their residency program or orthopedic department website homepage that mentioned and/or was dedicated to women or females. There was a significant association between region and homepage mention of women (χ² (8, N = 198) = 105.7; p < 0.001). A total of 12.9% of all orthopedic residency program directors were female, while 21.2% of all associate program directors were female. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and addressing regional disparities in gender representation within orthopedic surgery residency programs. By identifying trends and disparities, healthcare institutions and policymakers can implement targeted interventions to promote gender equity and cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce.
Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men Open PDF
(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, 2021)
Murrar, Sohad
;
Johnson, Paula A.
;
Lee, You-Geon
;
Carnes, Molly
Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.
Gender Factors in Reviewer Recommendations for Manuscript Publication Open PDF
(1990)
Lloyd, Margaret E.
This study investigated whether the gender of manuscript authors affected reviewers' editorial decisions. Female and male reviewers for five behavioral journals were asked to evaluate identical manuscripts according to their usual criteria. Half the manuscripts were supposedly written by men and half by women. Male reviewers did not evaluate male- and female-authored manuscripts differently. Female reviewers accepted significantly more female-authored (62%) than male-authored (10%) manuscripts. Female-authored manuscripts were accepted significantly more often by female (62%) than by male (21%) reviewers. Information unrelated to the quality of the manuscript appears to have influenced reviewers' decisions. Implications for the journal review process are discussed.
How is gender being addressed in the international development evaluation literature? A meta-evaluation Open PDF
(2019)
Lam, S.
;
Dodd, W.
;
Whynot, J.
;
Skinner, K.
Gender equity is an increasingly discussed priority and cross-cutting theme within international development evaluation. However, it is unclear whether advances being made in evaluating the outcomes in this area are reflected in the scholarly literature. In this context, a fundamental question is: How is gender being addressed in international development evaluation? To answer this question, we conducted a meta-evaluation to identify, synthesize, and assess published evaluation studies in international development with a focus on gender. We searched the Web of Science™ Core Collection database along with nine evaluation-focused journals using variations of the terms program evaluation' and gender'. A total of 2027 studies were identified, of which 70 met a priori inclusion criteria. Of the reviewed evaluations, many targeted gender-specific programs and specifically women. While the number of studies that report on gender is growing, and nearly all studies included gender-disaggregated data, often only outcomes by women' and men' were considered without going further to raise larger questions of gender equity. For evaluation to further contribute to gender equity, we suggest that future peer-reviewed evaluation studies provide data on diverse groups of genders, engage with evaluation stakeholders, consider the larger socio-cultural-political context of programming, encourage the use of evaluation findings, and provide actionable recommendations. © 2018 The Author(s).
The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review Open PDF
(2022)
Kern-Goldberger, Adina R.
;
James, Richard
;
Berghella, Vincenzo
;
Miller, Emily S.
OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities Open PDF
(2018)
Williams, Wadsworth A.
;
Garvey, Katherine L.
;
Goodman, Denise M.
;
Lauderdale, Diane S.
;
Ross, Lainie Friedman
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.
Ending Gender Inequality in Cardiovascular Clinical Trial Leadership: JACC Review Topic of the Week Open PDF
(2021)
Van Spall, Harriette G. C.
;
Lala, Anuradha
;
Deering, Thomas F.
;
Casadei, Barbara
;
Zannad, Faiez
Women are under-represented as leaders of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials, representing 1 in 10 lead authors of cardiovascular trials published in high-impact journals. Although the proportion of cardiovascular specialists who are women has increased in recent years, the proportion of cardiovascular clinical trialists who are women has not. This gap, underpinned by systemic sexism, has not been adequately addressed. The benefits of diverse randomized controlled trial leadership extend to patients and professionals. In this position statement, we present strategies adopted by some organizations to end gender inequality in research leadership. We offer an actionable roadmap for early-career researchers, scientists, academic institutions, professional societies, trial sponsors, and journals to follow, with the goal of harnessing the strength of women and under-represented groups as research leaders and facilitating a just culture in the cardiovascular clinical trial enterprise.
An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science Open PDF
(2018)
Gaule, P.
;
Piacentini, M.
We investigate whether having an advisor of the same gender is correlated with the productivity of PhD science students and their propensity to stay in academic science. Our analysis is based an original dataset – combined from dissertation abstracts, faculty directories and bibliometric data – covering nearly 20,000 PhD graduates and their advisors from U.S. chemistry departments. We find that students working with advisors of the same gender tend to be more productive during the PhD; and that female students working with female advisors are considerably more likely to become faculty themselves. We suggest that the under-representation of women in science and engineering faculty positions may perpetuate itself through the lower availability of same-gender advisors for female students. © 2018 Elsevier B.V.
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.
Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A gender-based approach from a public health journal. Open PDF
(2018)
Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón, María
;
Godoy, Pere
;
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto
;
Negrín, Miguel Ángel
;
Vives-Cases, Carmen
Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014-2015. Results were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance. Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results