PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14

Unpacking mathematical gender stereotypes: trends and directions from 25 years of research Open PDF
(Frontiers Media SA, 2025-11-18)
Nurlu, Özge
Gender norms shape multiple domains, including mathematics-long framed as a male-dominated field-thereby fostering pervasive mathematical gender stereotypes (MGS) that affect individuals' participation and achievement. This study aims to systematically synthesize empirical research published between 1999 and 2024, indexed in Web of Science, written in English, and available in full text. Only articles explicitly examining MGS were included; studies focused on broader STEM stereotypes, non-English publications, records without full-text access, and papers outside the specified time window were excluded. Limitations include the absence of protocol pre-registration-although inclusion/exclusion criteria and the analysis plan were specified in writing prior to the search and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed-and the unavoidable subjectivity in interpretation and categorization despite established inter-coder reliability. Analyses indicate that most studies are situated in psychology, frequently employ experimental designs, and primarily sample university students. Surveys dominate data collection, and parametric inferential statistics are commonly used. Geographically, the literature is concentrated in Western countries-particularly the United States and Germany-with limited contributions from the Global South. Publication counts fluctuate over time, with notable peaks in 2012 and 2022. Conceptually, the literature converges on two principal axes: (i) belief/domain-ownership formulations centered on male superiority and (ii) process-based formulations centered on ST. Less frequently examined yet theoretically informative extensions include endorsement, internalization, counter-stereotypic role models, and stereotype lift. Across qualitative, descriptive, correlational, mediation, meta-analytic, and experimental evidence, findings consistently cluster around these axes, with stereotype endorsement and MGS occupying central positions. Taken together, the results underscore the need for future research that is more interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and methodologically diverse to more comprehensively address MGS.
Exploring gender disparities in first authorship in anatomy during last two decades Open PDF
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-02-21)
Singal, Anjali
;
Goyal, Swati
Abstract Purpose In scientific literature, authorship serves as a vital form of symbolic capital, with first authorship especially signifying active research involvement. This study examines the presence and magnitude of the gender gap in Anatomy research authorship and tracks its progression over the past twenty years in five esteemed journals. To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the trend of female first authorship within the subject. Methods PubMed search for all the published articles in five reputed Anatomical journals (2004–2023) was performed to get the bibliographic details of each article. Rentrez package was used to retrieve full name and affiliation. The first authors from the Department of Anatomy, Morphology, Embryology and Histology were included. Gender of the first author was assessed using Namsor API. The proportions of female first authors were presented as percentage stratified year-wise and geographically. A Mann-Kendall trend test statistics was applied to observe the significance of trends. Results One third of publications were by female first authors in Anatomy in last two decades. Continent wise, Africa and North America had the highest and lowest female representation. Participation of female as first authors was relatively consistent across journals (31.6 -34.8%). Though trend for female first authors increased in 2023 (38.8%) as compare to in 2004 (28.9%), however Mann-Kendall trend test statistics indicate no significant increase in yearly trend (p = 0.552) during last twenty years. Conclusions Globally males continue to dominate the prestigious first authorship in Anatomy except in India and Italy. Future research is needed to fully understand the obstacles preventing female representation as first authors in different geographic areas in this discipline.
Gender Bias in the Study of Genital Evolution: Females Continue to Receive Less Attention than Males Open PDF
(2022)
Orbach, D. N.
The evolution of female genitalia has historically received less attention than male reproductive organs. Several papers have underscored the disparities in research efforts, but have calls for change resonated with the scientific community and rectified the skew? A literature review was conducted of journal articles published between 2013 through 2021 that explore genital evolution to determine if gender bias (sex of research subject) and imbalance (sex of researcher) have changed. Of the 334 articles that specifically explored genital evolution, first authors of both sexes published on female genitalia less than half as often as male genitalia, although the majority of authors published on genitalia of both sexes. First authors of both sexes mentioned females after males substantially more often than females before males. Female first authors published the most about genital evolution in all taxa except for insects and arachnids. Female first authors published in high impact journals marginally less often than male first authors. Articles about genital evolution across taxa generally had high impact factors, but how impact factors and number of citations varied by the sex of the subject was not clear. Although the number of studies exploring genital co-evolution between the sexes has increased across taxa and years, female genitalia continue to be researched less often than male genitalia when only one sex is investigated. Both female and male scientists are publishing in the field of genital evolution, although research on female subjects continue to lag behind males, demonstrating continued bias within the discipline.
Gender disparities in the author bylines of articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019 Open PDF
(2022)
Matchanova, Anastasia
;
Avci, Gunes
;
Babicz, Michelle A.
;
Thompson, Jennifer L.
;
Johnson, Briana
Objective: Women are becoming more prevalent in clinical neuropsychology, but gender bias and disparities persist across multiple professional domains. This study examined potential gender disparities in historical authorship trends across commonly read journals in clinical neuropsychology. Method: Analyses were conducted on 10,531 articles published in six clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019. Each author was coded as either a man or a woman using the OpenGenderTracking Project database. Results: On average, women comprised 43.3% (±30.6) of the authors listed in clinical neuropsychology article bylines and were lead and/or corresponding author on 50.3% of these papers. Findings varied by journal, with Child Neuropsychology having the best representation of women across several study metrics. Women comprised an increasing proportion of authors over time and the gender gap in clinical neuropsychology is smaller than was recently reported for the broader field of psychology; nevertheless, the recent rates of women as authors lag behind the prevalence of women in clinical neuropsychology. Encouragingly, gender was not associated with the number of times an article was cited. Articles that included women in leadership roles had significantly more authors overall and specifically more women authors. Conclusions: Women are under-represented as authors in clinical neuropsychology journals, but they are becoming more common and their papers are cited just as frequently as men. Efforts to increase women as research mentors and sponsors may help to further close the publishing gender gap in clinical neuropsychology.
Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19 Open PDF
(2022)
Madsen, Emil Bargmann
;
Nielsen, Mathias Wullum
;
Bjørnholm, Josefine
;
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Andersen, Jens Peter
Publications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.
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.
Gender bias in the allocation of student grants Open PDF
(2021)
Wijnen, M.N.
;
Massen, J.J.M.
;
Kret, M.E.
Multiple studies have shown that women’s likelihood of receiving research funding is lower than that of their male colleagues. Thus far, all research on this gender gap in academia has focused on post-PhD academics, making it difficult to discern whether the female disadvantages in number of publications, previous grants, maternity leave, and h-indexes are at the root of the gender gap in received funding, or whether it is due to a more fundamental gender bias in academia. Therefore, we investigated whether female university students are already disadvantaged in receiving their first grant in their scientific career. We analysed data on applications (N = 2651) from 1995 to 2018 to the Leiden University International Study Fund (LISF), a fund dedicated to support students to study or conduct research abroad. We found that men and women applied equally often to the LISF. However, women had a lower success rate, which seemed to only get worse over recent years. Furthermore, male and female applications were assessed to be equal in quality when gender-related information was removed from them. The current study demonstrates that the factors that were assumed to contribute the most to the gender gap in more senior academics (e.g. previous grants, h-index) do not explain it fully: even when those factors do not yet play a role, such as in our student sample, women were found to have lower success rates than men. This underscores the importance of attacking gender biases at its roots. © 2021, The Author(s).
Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study Open PDF
(2016)
van den Besselaar, P.
;
Sandström, U.
We take up the issue of performance differences between male and female researchers, and investigate the change of performance differences during the early career. In a previous paper it was shown that among starting researchers gendered performance differences seem small to non-existent (Van Arensbergen et al. 2012). If the differences do not occur in the early career anymore, they may emerge in a later period, or may remain absent. In this paper we use the same sample of male and female researchers, but now compare performance levels about 10 years later. We use various performance indicators: full/fractional counted productivity, citation impact, and relative citation impact in terms of the share of papers in the top 10 % highly cited papers. After the 10 years period, productivity of male researchers has grown faster than of female researcher, but the field normalized (relative) citation impact indicators of male and female researchers remain about equal. Furthermore, performance data do explain to a certain extent why male careers in our sample develop much faster than female researchers’ careers; but controlling for performance differences, we find that gender is an important determinant too. Consequently, the process of hiring academic staff still remains biased. © 2015, The Author(s).
[Glass ceiling and gender inequalities in the careers of women academics in biomedical sciences] Open PDF
(2020)
Segovia-Saiz, Carla
;
Briones-Vozmediano, Erica
;
Pastells-Peiró, Roland
;
González-María, Esther
;
Gea-Sánchez, Montserrat
OBJECTIVE: To identify in the international scientific literature the obstacles and potential promoters for the advancement of women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences during their professional careers. METHOD: PubMed, Scopus, CinahlPlus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched for articles published in English and Spanish between January 2006 and December 2016 on the phenomenon of the glass ceiling in women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences. The screening was carried out by independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 2254 studies were found, of which 23 were included in the review. The obstacles identified for the promotion of women academics and/or researchers in biomedical sciences are: gender bias in the evaluation of research results, individualism and lack of collaboration, women's lack of influence, the existence of gender inequalities in access to employment. The perception of sexism and discrimination in the work environment, and the difficulties in reconciling work and family life. The promoting elements are: examples of women in leadership positions, mentoring, facilitating conciliation, transparency in recruitment, participation in decision-making, gender assessment of research, awareness of gender inequalities in institutions, promoting collaboration, and pay equity. CONCLUSIONS: By enhancing the elements favouring the promotion of academic women in biomedical sciences would help to reduce the glass ceiling in the career paths of women academics and health science researchers by increasing their participation, leadership and representation. A change of organizational and institutional values is required to achieve this.
The Issue of Gender Bias Represented in Authorship in the Fields of Exercise and Rehabilitation: A 5-Year Research in Indexed Journals Open PDF
(MDPI, 2023)
Rinaldo, N.
;
Piva, G.
;
Ryder, S.
;
Crepaldi, A.
;
Pasini, A.
Despite progress made in recent decades, gender bias is still present in scientific publication authorship. The underrepresentation of women and overrepresentation of men has already been reported in the medical fields but little is known in the fields of exercise sciences and rehabilitation. This study examines trends in authorship by gender in this field in the last 5 years. All randomized controlled trials published in indexed journals from April 2017 to March 2022 through the widely inclusive Medline dataset using the MeSH term “exercise therapy” were collected, and the gender of the first and last authors was identified through names, pronouns and photographs. Year of publication, country of affiliation of the first author, and ranking of the journal were also collected. A chi-squared test for trends and logistic regression models were performed to analyze the odds of a woman being a first or last author. The analysis was performed on a total of 5259 articles. Overall, 47% had a woman as the first author and 33% had a woman as the last author, with a similar trend over five years. The trend in women’s authorship varied by geographical area, with the higher representation of women authors in Oceania (first: 53.1%; last: 38.8%), North-Central America (first: 45.3%; last: 37.2%), and Europe (first: 47.2%; last: 33.3%). The logistic regression models (p < 0.001) indicated that women have lower odds of being authors in prominent authorship positions in higher-ranked journals. In conclusion, over the last five years, in the field of exercise and rehabilitation research, women and men are almost equally represented as first authors, in contrast with other medical areas. However, gender bias, unfavoring women, still exists, especially in the last authorship position, regardless of geographical area and journal ranking. © 2023 by the authors.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results