PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender Differences

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 39
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Equity in Endodontic Scholarship and Academia Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-10)
    Ermoshkin, Sarah J.
    ;
    Best, Al M.
    ;
    Tordik, Patricia A.
    INTRODUCTION: Our hypothesis explored representation in women's leadership positions in endodontic academia to assess publication participation of men and women from 2010 to 2023 and to test academic rank disparities by comparing men and women faculty rank, gender, and citation impact. METHODS: Authors' names were downloaded from a PubMed search of publications in the Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, and Dental Traumatology between 2010 and 2023. Editorial board members and reviewers were obtained from journal pages. Gender API software was used to determine gender based on first names. Fifty-four United States endodontic postgraduate departments were identified on the American Association of Endodontists website in 2022, and faculty information and rank were verified on departmental websites. Respective H-index scores were calculated using Harzing's Publish or Perish software. RESULTS: Of the 36,587 authors, 35% were women, and the percentage of women authors increased by 0.5% per year (95% CI = 0.3-0.6). Compared to women, men published more than women, outnumbered women as reviewers, and held more positions on editorial boards. The educational leadership of the United States endodontics programs is 29% women. Women comprise 23% of chairs, 21% of postgraduate directors, and 47% of predoctoral director positions (P = .013). However, among academic leaders in the United States, faculty rank is not associated with gender (P = .396) after scholarly impact and leadership roles are adjusted for. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, the leadership role predicts rank, not gender. This suggests that women need to take action to apply for more leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Stroke and myocardial infarction: A comparative systematic evaluation of gender-specific analysis, funding and authorship patterns in cardiovascular research Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Oertelt-Prigione, S.
    ;
    Wiedmann, S.
    ;
    Endres, M.
    ;
    Nolte, C.H.
    ;
    Regitz-Zagrosek, V.
    Background: Major gender differences exist in cardiovascular diseases and lead to different outcomes in women and men. However, attention and incorporation of sex-/gender-specific research might vary among disciplines. We therefore conducted a systematic review comparing publication characteristics and trends between stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) with respect to sex- and gender-related aspects. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed to identify gender-/sex-related articles published for stroke and MI between 1977 and 2008. A specifically designed text mining program was used, and all literature was rated by two independent investigators. Publications were classified according to type of research performed, publication year, funding, geographical location, and gender of first and last authors. Results: 962 articles were retrieved and limited to 405 (42%) gender-relevant publications; 131 on stroke and 274 on MI. Type of performed research differed, especially in disease management, which received little attention (17%) in stroke, while representing the major focus in MI (40%). In both areas, clinical presentation received little attention (3 and 5%). Although publications progressively increased in both fields, an 8- to 10-year time gap emerged for stroke compared to MI. Last authors in both areas were predominantly men, but female last authorship is increasing more significantly over time in the field of stroke. Research on sex and gender differences in MI and stroke is largely underfunded, particularly by the EU. Conclusions: The data demonstrate how sex-/gender-specific research differs between specialties, most likely due to the diverse interest, funding opportunities and authorship distributions identified. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Mayer, S.J.
    ;
    Rathmann, J.M.K.
    Measures of research productivity have become widely used for obtaining tenure, third-party funding, and additional resources from universities. However, previous studies indicate that men might have a higher research output than women, with mixed conclusions about the factors that drive these differences. This study explores to what extent the research productivity of psychology professors in Germany is related to gender and, furthermore, how any gender gaps can be explained by controlling for individual and organizational factors. In addition, three publication dimensions (publications in top 10% journals, journal articles, and book and collection chapters) are distinguished to determine the effect of gender on research productivity as precisely as possible. A unique data set based on all full professors in psychology in Germany and their publication record in 2013 and 2014 is used (Nauthors = 294; Narticles = 2252, Nchapters = 439). Thus, this study provides a current overview of the state of research productivity in an entire discipline after researchers receive tenure and external restrictions are lessened. Our research helps to further locate the point at which gender differences in publication numbers occur. As we are the first to systematically to analyze different publication types, we are able to show that there is no difference in publication numbers for less-prestigious book chapters. However, we find significant gender differences for research productivity in academic journals that are more important for career advancement and peer recognition, even after we control for the most important individual and organizational factors that might explain gender differences. Our results point to the direction that women do research and write manuscripts, but may have different publication patterns: instead of submitting to competitive journals, they may be satisfied with less-prestigious book chapters. As publications in peer-reviewed journals are especially important for career advancement as well as peer recognition, this publication pattern may be disadvantageous for women. Overall, we conclude that additional research to understand these developments is needed that focuses on the motives and beliefs of researchers, both to improve gender equality in academia and to give women better chances to gain recognition and prestige. © 2018, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Marsh, H.W.
    ;
    Jayasinghe, U.W.
    ;
    Bond, N.W.
    Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are there gender differences among researchers from industrial/organizational psychology? Open PDF 
    (2015)
    König, C.J.
    ;
    Fell, C.B.
    ;
    Kellnhofer, L.
    ;
    Schui, G.
    Questions about gender differences in the workplace usually attract much attention—but often generate more heat than light. To examine gender differences in several facets of scientific productivity and impact, a quantitative, scientometric approach is employed. Analyzing a sample of industrial and organizational psychologists (Nauthors = 4234; Npublications = 46,656), this study raises both questions and concerns about gender differences in research, by showing that female and male I–O psychologists differ with regard to publication output (fewer publications authored by female researchers), impact (heterogeneous, indicator-dependent gender differences), their publication career courses (male researchers’ periods of active publishing last longer and show longer interruptions), and research interests (only marginal gender differences). In order to get a glimpse of future developments, we repeated all analyses with the student subsample and found nearly no gender differences, suggesting a more gender-balanced future. Thus, this study gives an overview over the status quo of gender differences in an entire psychological sub-discipline. Future research will have to examine whether these gender differences are volitional in nature or the manifestation of external constraints. © 2015, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    COVID-19 effect on the gender gap in academic publishing Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Jemielniak, D.
    ;
    Sławska, A.
    ;
    Wilamowski, M.
    The authors wanted to verify a popular belief that women scholars have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the first names of authors of 266,409 articles from 2813 journals in 21 disciplines, and we found no significant differences between men and women in publication patterns between 2021, 2020, and 2019 overall. However, we found significant differences in publication patterns between gender in different disciplines. In addition, in disciplines where the proportion of women authors is higher, there are fewer single-authored articles. In the multi-author articles if the first author is female, there is more gender balance among authors, although there are still fewer women co-authors. © The Author(s) 2022.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequities in dental research publications: Findings from 20 years Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Haag, D.G.
    ;
    Schuch, H.S.
    ;
    Nath, S.
    ;
    Baker, S.
    ;
    Celeste, R.K.
    Background: The first steps towards gender equity in science are measuring the magnitude of inequity and increasing awareness of the problem. Objectives: To describe trends in gender disparities in first and last authorship in the most cited dental publications and general dental literature over a 20-year period. Methods: Articles and bibliometric data were retrieved from the Scopus database for the period 1996 to 2015. Two groups of 1000 articles each were retrieved: a random sample and another sample of top-cited articles for each year. The gender of the first and last author of each publication was manually identified. When this was not possible, we used an online software platform (https://genderize.io/). Descriptive analyses identified the proportion of women first and last authors in both samples, stratifying by dental discipline and geographic region. Trends were ascertained by frequency metrics across years. Gender disparity was observed in both first and last authorship, with a larger gap being observed in the top-cited sample. Results: Women led 28.4% and 20.3% of articles in the random and top-cited samples, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for the last authorship group (22.1% and 16.1%, respectively). An increasing trend in the proportion of articles led by women over time was observed in both samples. This increase was larger in the top-cited sample (from 15.0% in 1996–2000 to 25.1% in 2015) than in the random sample (from 26.3% in 1996–2000 to 33.2% in 2011). Conclusions: Clear gender disparities in dental research publications in the last 20 years were identified in both general and top-cited manuscripts, across dental disciplines, across countries, across first and last authorship, and over time. It is paramount that actions are taken to attract, retain and promote women in science, as well as to monitor and ensure progress towards gender equity. © 2022 The Authors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist? Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Zhang, N.
    ;
    He, G.
    ;
    Shi, D.
    ;
    Zhao, Z.
    ;
    Li, J.
    Women have long suffered in both academia and industry from lower status, underrepresentation, unequal treatment, and other challenges based on gender. This paper explores whether a gender-neutral name is associated with the research impact of a scientist by examining three years of citations. The data for this study are derived from publications indexed in ISI's Web of Science (WoS) database from 2009 to 2015. By assigning a name neutralization index score to each author, we investigate the relationship between the neutralization index and citations and find the following results: (1) generally, the more neutral the name, the more citations the publications received; (2) the neutral effect was more pronounced for authors with feminine names than for authors with masculine names. © 2022
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientists' genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Zhang, M.
    ;
    Zhang, G.
    ;
    Liu, Y.
    ;
    Zhai, X.
    ;
    Han, X.
    In the previous literature, no clear conclusions have been reached about the effect of gender differences on research performance (RP) in science, as measured by publication productivity, number of citations, and academic awards. Meanwhile, a gap also exists in the research regarding gender differences in international academic collaboration. To complement the existing literature, this study investigated the achievements of scientists engaged in international academic collaboration, which places heavy demands on language and communication skills and in which female scientists appear to have more advantages than male scientists. We investigated the effect of international collaboration carried out by chemists from China's Project 985 universities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences and compared the extent to which the international collaboration improved female and male scientists' academic performance. The results indicated that, compared to male scientists, female scientists performed better and significantly improved their academic performance through international collaboration. This conclusion was valid for different periods throughout chemists' academic careers. The policy implications are discussed at the end of this study. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.
  • 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.