PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender DifferencesViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons
    (2022)
    Zhang, L.
    ;
    Shang, Y.
    ;
    Huang, Y.
    ;
    Sivertsen, G.
    Peer review of scientific manuscripts before publication is essential in scholarly publishing, and most active researchers hold relationships with a number of journals as both an author and a reviewer. There have been several studies focusing on gender balance in academic research and authorship, but fewer studies on our role as reviewers. Publons is a commercial website run by Clarivate Analytics that allows researchers to track and verify their peer review activities and be recognized for it. The platform features over 2 million researchers and 6.9 million reviews for more than 5,000 partnered journals, listing the most active reviewers as “top reviewers”. Our study focuses on gender representation in this ‘top reviewer’ group while also looking at the countries, regions and research fields they represent, as well as the relationship between their roles as authors and reviewers. The results show that male reviewers dominate in almost all countries, regions, and research fields. Male reviewers generally contribute to review work more frequently than females; however, female reviewers write longer reviews. The correlations between reviewing activity and research activity are generally weak overall and within specific research fields. This may reflect that active reviewers are not necessarily the most productive researchers in their fields. What clearly emerges from our results is the need for more concern over gender representation in the quality assurance and gatekeeping functions of scholarly publishing. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in citation impact for 27 fields and six english-speaking countries 1996–2014 Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Thelwall, M.
    Initiatives addressing the lack of women in many academic fields, and the general lack of senior women, need to be informed about the causes of any gender differences that may affect career progression, including citation impact. Previous research about gender differences in journal article citation impact has found the direction of any difference to vary by country and field, but has usually avoided discussions of the magnitude and wider significance of any differences and has not been systematic in terms of fields and/or time. This study investigates differences in citation impact between male and female first-authored research for 27 broad fields and six large English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) from 1996 to 2014. The results show an overall female first author citation advantage, although in most broad fields it is reversed in all countries for some years. International differences include Medicine having a female first author citation advantage for all years in Australia, but a male citation advantage for most years in Canada. There was no general trend for the gender difference to increase or decrease over time. The average effect size is small, however, and unlikely to have a substantial influence on overall gender differences in researcher careers. © 2020 Mike Thelwall. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender issues in fundamental physics: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Strumia, A.
    I analyze bibliometric data about fundamental physics worldwide from 1970 to now, extracting quantitative data about gender issues. I do not find significant gender differences in hiring rates, hiring timing, career gaps and slowdowns, abandonment rates, citation, and self-citation patterns. Furthermore, various bibliometric indicators (number of fractionally counted papers, citations, etc.) exhibit a productivity gap at hiring moments, at career level, and without integrating over careers. The gap persists after accounting for confounding factors and manifests as an increasing fraction of male authors going from average to top authors in terms of bibliometric indices, with a quantitative shape that can be fitted by higher male variability. © 2021 Alessandro Strumia. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Shang, Y.
    ;
    Sivertsen, G.
    ;
    Cao, Z.
    ;
    Zhang, L.
    In 2016, the United Nations officially launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. Among the seventeen SDGs, Gender Equality (SDG5) is recognized as important for the achievement of the other 16 goals because gender inequality exists across education, employment opportunities, healthcare facilities, life expectancy, family life, and political participation, thereby holding back the capacity of half of the world’s population to contribute to solutions to the global challenges. This bibliometric study explores gender balance and differences among first authors within SDG5 oriented research during the first 5 years after the implementation of SDG5 in 2016. Compared with other SDGs, the field of SDG5 produces relatively less scientific publications, which feature a dominance of female first authors. Within the field, male and female first authors focus on partly different topics. Potential readers show more interest in publications by female first authors. This investigation highlights the importance of increasing gender diversity in SDG5-related studies, which is helpful for the achievement of sustainable development. © 2022, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Polanco, Nathalie A. Pena
    ;
    McNally, Bridgette B.
    ;
    Levy, Cynthia
    ;
    Carey, Elizabeth J.
    ;
    Palomique, Juvelyn
    BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that gender differences in academic medicine exist. Men frequently have better measures of performance such as number of publications, number of citations, remuneration, and funding. AIMS: To evaluate whether a gender disparity in authorship exists. METHODS: We recorded the gender of first and senior authors of original papers, editorials/reviews from liver-related manuscripts in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Transplantation, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Liver Transplantation from January 2014 to 2016. RESULTS: Of 2424 articles reviewed, we excluded 232 (10%) due to inability to determine gender. Among papers analyzed, 72.0% were original and 28.1% reviews/editorials with 65.1% of first authors being male and 34.9% female. Only 20.3% of papers with multiple authors had a female senior author. The proportion of male first and senior authorship between original papers and reviews/editorials was comparable. 72% of original papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 28% females. 71% of review/editorial papers had a male as first or senior author, but only 29% females. When the senior author of an original paper was female, 47.1% of first authors were male and 52.9% female. When the senior author was male, 67.1% of first authors were male and 32.9% female (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant gender difference exists in Hepatology publications. Female authorship mirrors the percentage of female AASLD membership; however, female senior authorship remains disproportionate. In general, funding for male authors is greater. Fewer women are first authors when the senior author is male, highlighting the importance of female mentorship in Hepatology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and bibliometrics: A review
    (De Gruyter Saur, 2020)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    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 positions, 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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Research on women in science and higher education: A bibliometric analysis Open PDF 
    (2015)
    Dehdarirad, T.
    ;
    Villarroya, A.
    ;
    Barrios, M.
    The main objective of this paper is to study the development and growth of scientific literature on women in science and higher education. A total of 1415 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012 were extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. Standard bibliometric indicators and laws (e.g. Price’s, Lotka’s, and Bradford’s laws) were applied to these data. In addition, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was obtained for each country in order to rank them. The results suggest an upward trend not only in the number of papers but also in the number of authors per paper. However, this increase in the number of authors was not accompanied by greater international collaboration. The interest in gender differences in science extends too many authors (n = 3064), countries (n = 67), and research areas (n = 86). Data showed a high dispersion of the literature and a small set of core journals focused on the topic. Regarding the research areas, the area with the highest frequency of papers was Education and Educational Research. Finally, our results showed that countries with higher levels of inequality (higher GII values) tend to present higher relative values of scientific productivity in the field. © 2015, Kluwer Academic Publishers.