PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender BiasViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    High-Citation Papers in Space Physics: Examination of Gender, Country, and Paper Characteristics Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Moldwin, M.B.
    ;
    Liemohn, M.W.
    The number of citations to a refereed journal article from other refereed journal articles is a measure of its impact. Papers, individuals, journals, departments, and institutions are increasingly judged by the impact they have in their disciplines, and citation counts are now a relatively easy (though not necessarily accurate or straightforward) way of attempting to quantify impact. This study examines papers published in the Journal of Geophysical Research—Space Physics in the year 2012 (n = 705) and analyzes the characteristics of high-citation papers compared to low-citation papers. We find that high-citation papers generally have a large number of authors (>5) and cite significantly more articles in the reference section than low-citation papers. We also examined the gender and country of institution of the first author and found that there is not a statistically significant gender bias, but there are some significant differences in citation statistics between articles based on the country of first-author institution. ©2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Mihaljević, H.
    ;
    Santamaría, L.
    Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority. © 2020 Helena Mihaljević and Lucía Santamaría.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    ;
    Sud, P.
    Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible undercitation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first-and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities. © 2020 Mike Thelwall and Pardeep Sud. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    [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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    First Authorship Gender Gap in the Geosciences Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Pico, T.
    ;
    Bierman, P.
    ;
    Doyle, K.
    ;
    Richardson, S.
    Although gender parity has been reached at the graduate level in the geosciences, women remain a minority in faculty positions. First authorship of peer-reviewed scholarship is a measure of academic success and is often used to project potential in the hiring process. Given the importance of first author publications for hiring and advancement, we sought to quantify whether women are underrepresented as first authors relative to their representation in the field of geoscience. We compiled first author names across 13 leading geoscience journals from January 2013 to April 2019 (n = 35,183). Using a database of 216,286 names from 79 countries, across 89 languages, we classified the likely gender associated with each author's given (first) name. We also estimated the gender distribution of authors who publish using only initials, which may itself be a strategy employed by some women to preempt perceived (and actual) gender bias in the publication process. Female names represent 13–30% of all first authors in our database and are substantially underrepresented relative to the proportion of women in early career positions (30–50%). The proportion of female-name first authors varies substantially by subfield, reflecting variation in representation of women across geoscience subdisciplines. In geoscience, the quantification of this first authorship gender gap supports the hypothesis that the publication process—namely, achievement or allocation of first authorship—is biased by social factors, which may modulate career success of women in the sciences.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Digital technology helps remove gender bias in academia Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Fortin, J.
    ;
    Bartlett, B.
    ;
    Kantar, M.
    ;
    Tseng, M.
    ;
    Mehrabi, Z.
    Science attempts to be a meritocracy; however, in recent years, there has been increasing evidence for systematic gender bias against women. This bias is present in many metrics commonly used to evaluate scientific productivity, which in turn influences hiring and career success. Here we explore a new metric, the Altmetric Attention Score, and find no evidence of bias across many major journals (Nature, PNAS, PLOS One, New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, and BioRxiv), with equal attention afforded to articles authored by men and women alike. The exception to this rule is the journal Science, which has marked gender bias against women in 2018, equivalent to a mean of 88 more tweets or 11 more news articles and a median of 20 more tweets or 3 more news articles for male than female first authors. Our findings qualify Altmetric, for many types and disciplines of journals, as a potentially unbiased measure of science communication in academia and suggest that new technologies, such as those on which Altmetric is based, might help to democratize academic evaluation. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Seeking Gender Equity in Pharmacy Academia
    (2023)
    Devraj, R
    ;
    Warholak, T
    ;
    Planas, LG
    Gender inequity is a critical diversity, equity, and inclusion issue that has continued to lead to workplace disparities. While gender-based differences in pay are well documented, there are multiple other facets of academic worklife (eg, teaching, research, service, resources, etc) wherein gender inequities exist but have never been systematically identified or reported. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these inequities. One reason for continued existence of gender disparities in the workplace is lack of focused attention and emphasis on this issue. A recently formed Gender Equity Task Force has taken the first steps to systematically explore gender inequity in all areas of academic pharmacy worklife. The purpose of this Commentary is to highlight the scope of the problem of gender inequity in pharmacy academia and offer solutions that the Academy can implement to mitigate the impact of gender inequity in the future.
  • Item type:Publication,
    5.6 Gender and Bibliometrics: A Review
    (De Gruyter Saur, 2021)
    Dehdarirad, Tahereh
    ;
    Ball, Rafael
    Abstract: This study provides a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the main bibliometric indicators in relation to gender and the underlying factors which have an effect on the research productivity and impact of female and male scholars. The main indicators studied in the literature were the number of publications, the number of citations, self-citations, Journal Impact Factor, h-Index, authorship posi- tions, and collaboration patterns. The literature on the visibility of scholars from the point of social media metrics has also been appraised. Underlying factors have a complex and inconclusive impact on productivity. The literature was divided into two groups, based on personal and structural factors. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. All rights reserved.