PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 12
  • Item type:Publication,
    Male-dominated participation in the first two years of medical school: A mismatch between reality and perception Open PDF 
    (Informa UK Limited, 2026-02-26)
    Park, Connor C.
    ;
    Brendes, Keith D.
    ;
    Lundstrom, Karrie
    ;
    O’Neil, Kiley
    ;
    Jayaram, Maya A.
    Introduction: Although women now comprise most U.S. medical students, male physicians continue to dominate leadership roles, earn higher salaries, and hold more full professorships. These disparities suggest that cultural dynamics contributing to gender inequities may emerge early in medical training. This mixed-methods study investigated gender differences in perceived and actual participation in mandatory educational sessions during the first two years of medical school. Methods: First, a survey assessed student perceptions of gendered participation across mandatory first- and second-year educational sessions. Subsequently, these sessions were observed for eight weeks at a single institution. Observed sessions included full-class Didactic and Social/Ethical sessions (120 students) and smaller Clinical sessions (30 students). For each participation instance (asking or answering a question), the gender of the student and instructor was recorded. Students could opt out. Results: Survey responses indicated that most students perceived no gender-based differences in Social/Ethical or Clinical sessions. Female students, however, reported that men participated more frequently in Didactic sessions, while male students perceived no disparity (p = 0.001). Observational data showed male students accounted for 72.4% of 311 participation events (p < 0.001). Men contributed significantly more in Didactic (81.2%) and Social/Ethical sessions (67.1%; both p < 0.001), with no significant difference in Clinical sessions (54% male; p = 0.19). Male participation decreased in sessions led by female instructors compared with male (p = 0.036) or mixed-gender faculty (p = 0.023). Discussion: Despite objective gender disparities in participation, most first- and second-year students did not perceive differences. Notably, only female students perceived this discrepancy in their pre-observation surveys, and only in the context of didactic sessions. This imbalance may reinforce early professional norms favoring male visibility and engagement, perpetuating gender inequities in academic medicine. Addressing these dynamics is essential for fostering equitable learning environments and promoting diverse leadership in medicine.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A longitudinal analysis of gendered career trajectories and academic efficiency in North American MD/PhD faculty Open PDF 
    (Informa UK Limited, 2026-05-28)
    Quon, Stephanie
    ;
    Joseph, Marissa
    ;
    Khosa, Faisal
    Gender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing women's representation in higher education. Prior research highlights the underrepresentation of women in senior ranks and leadership roles, yet few studies have assessed these disparities using time-adjusted productivity metrics. This study aims to evaluate gender-based differences in academic rank, scholarly productivity, and leadership representation among MD/PhD faculty in North America, accounting for career length and institutional variability. A secondary analysis was conducted on a dataset of 6,149 MD/PhD faculty from 122 accredited North American medical schools. Time-adjusted measures of productivity, H-index per year and citations per year, were calculated. Gender differences in rank, productivity, and leadership were assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests and descriptive statistics. Institutional-level representation of women in leadership roles was also analyzed. Women held significantly lower academic ranks than males and were underrepresented in departmental leadership roles. Despite achieving assistant and full professorships earlier, women were overall less likely to reach these positions. Males exhibited higher time-adjusted H-index and citation rates (p < .0001), with a compounded 3.5-year publication gap. Institutional analysis revealed stark variability: 38 institutions had no women in MD/PhD leadership roles, while fewer than 20 percent achieved gender parity. Gender disparities in academic medicine cannot be explained by productivity alone. Structural barriers, opaque promotion criteria, and institutional cultures continue to impede women's advancement and leadership. Addressing these inequities requires transparent policies, targeted mentorship, equity audits, and inclusive leadership pathways to support a more equitable academic workforce.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists Open PDF 
    (Wiley, 2026-06)
    Viswanathan, Jayalakshmi
    ;
    Karamacoska, Diana
    ;
    Thakur, Lokendra S.
    ;
    Sawan, Mouna
    ;
    Gomez‐Arboledas, Angela
    Abstract Introduction: Women are increasingly entering the dementia research workforce, but they frequently fail to attain senior leadership positions in academia. Discrepancies in academic research outputs were investigated to guide equity-focused policy recommendations. Methods: Bibliometrics was conducted on 400,482 original research articles (2003-2022) followed by surveying the AD/ADRD research community, to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate discrepancies in publication and authorship trends. In addition, an unsupervised learning algorithm was developed to analyze underlying relationships between author groups. Results: Male author gender was consistently predictive of better publication and citation metrics across all bibliometrics outcomes, with senior male authors outperforming all other subgroups and fewer senior female authors in most research areas. Female survey respondents reported more barriers, but comparable productivity and citation strategies as male authors. Discussion: Multi-pronged approaches by stakeholders across institutions, funders, and journals are necessary to provide career support for early-career scientists working to transition to senior research roles.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Systematic Review of Gender-Based Differences in Hirsch Index Among Academic Surgeons Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Myers, S.P.
    ;
    Reitz, K.M.
    ;
    Wessel, C.B.
    ;
    Neal, M.D.
    ;
    Corbelli, J.A.
    Background: The h-index is a commonly used bibliometric in academic medicine which enumerates the number of publications (h) that have been cited h times. Recent investigations have suggested that gender-based differences in h-index may exist among academic physicians. We systematically reviewed studies of academic surgeons’ h-index, hypothesizing that a significant difference would exist between the h-index of men and women at all academic ranks. Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles authored by academic surgeons of any subspecialization in the United States between January 1, 2006, and November 20, 2017, were reviewed. We excluded studies of trainees or gender-based differences in funding without mention of h-index. Two reviewers assessed article quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Pooled estimates of standard mean differences (SMD) in h-index between genders were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. A subgroup analysis based on the academic rank was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of study on h-index. Meta-regression identified whether surgical specialty contributed to heterogeneity. Results: Twelve articles comparing h-index between genders were selected from 7950. Men possessed higher h-indices than women (SMD, 0.547; P &lt; 0.001; I 2 = 89.5%). Men exhibited higher h-indices at the assistant rank (SMD, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.24; P = 0.039) but not at the associate (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.33; P = 0.165) or full professor (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to −0.31; P = 0.25) ranks. Conclusions: The h-index is higher for men than that for women in academic surgery overall but not at individual ranks. Further investigations are necessary to address limitations in h-index and to further characterize the relationship between h-index, gender, and promotion. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001–2020 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Meho, L.I.
    This study examines gender disparities in the world’s 141 most prestigious international research awards. I find that (a) from 2001 to 2020 these awards were received 3,445 times by 2,011 men and 262 women; (b) women’s share increased from an annual average of 6% during 2001–2005 to an annual average of 19% during 2016–2020; (c) 49 of the 141 awards were not received by women during 2016–2020; and (d) when the numbers of female full professors are taken into consideration, the gender gap remains highly disproportionate in biological and life sciences, computer science, and mathematics. Overall, women would be expected to increase their share of awards by nearly 50% to achieve parity with men today. The study shows great similarities between men and women award recipients in journal articles per author, the average number of authors per article, the proportion of articles in top journals, citations per article, and participation in large research groups and international collaborations. I conclude that the gender gap in highly prestigious research awards is largely a result of demographic inertia and other factors that deserve further investigation. © 2021, MIT Press Journals. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in the field of economics Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Liu, Junwan
    ;
    Song, Yinglu
    ;
    Yang, Sai
    In order to analyse the gender disparities in scientific research output in the field of economics, this paper selected the Web of Science database as the source database. We collected and screened 257,642 articles written by 130,397 authors from 1933 to 2017 in the field of economics. In this study, we use mathematical statistics and bibliometrics indexes to quantitatively analyse the gap between male and female authors in many aspects, including the output and influence in different level of journals and institutions, the dynamic evolution of output and influence and collaboration modes with gender disparities. In addition, we have analyzed the disparities in output and influence of male and female authors among different countries. The results show that male authors dominate in the economics research field according to their high output and influence. However, female authors also show advantage when it comes to the research influence. Finally, we conducted a dynamic analysis of the contribution and collaboration of men and women over the course of their careers, and our findings again demonstrate the importance of women’s participation in scientific collaboration. This study can provide an insight of gender different in economics research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparities in International Research Collaboration: A Study of 25,000 University Professors Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Kwiek, M.
    ;
    Roszka, W.
    In this large-scale research based on bibliometric, biographical and administrative data, we examine how gender disparities in international research collaboration differ by collaboration intensity, academic position, age, and academic discipline. The following are the major findings: (1) While female scientists exhibit a higher rate of general, national, and institutional collaboration, male scientists exhibit a higher rate of international collaboration. (2) An aggregated picture of gender disparities hides a more nuanced cross-disciplinary picture of them. (3) An analysis of international research collaboration at three separate intensity levels (low, medium, and high) reveals that male scientists dominate in international collaboration at each level. However, at each level, there are specific disciplines in which females collaborate internationally more than males. Furthermore (4), gender disparities in international research collaboration are clearly linked with age: they are the lowest and statistically insignificant for young scientists and the highest and statistically significant for the oldest scientists. Finally, we estimate the odds ratios of being involved in international research collaboration using an analytical linear logistic model. The examined sample includes 25,463 internationally visible Polish university professors from 85 universities, grouped into 24 disciplines, and 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Economic Surveys published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric studies on gender disparities in science
    (2019)
    Halevi, G.
    Understanding gender related disparities in science is an essential step in tackling these issues. Through the years, bibliometric studies have designed several methodologies to analyze scholarly output and demonstrate that there are significant gaps between men and women in the scientific arena. However, gender identification in itself is an enormous challenge, since bibliographic data does not reveal it. These bibliometric studies not only focused on publication output and impact, but also on cross-referencing output, promotions and tenure data, and other related curriculum vitae (CV) information. This chapter discusses the challenges of tracking gender disparities in science through bibliometrics and reviews the various approaches taken by bibliometricians to identify gender and analyze the bibliographic data in order to point to gender disparities in science. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature Open PDF 
    (SAGE Publications, 2022)
    Selvakumar, Sruthi
    ;
    Zagales, Israel
    ;
    Newsome, Kevin
    ;
    Spardy, Jeffrey
    ;
    Santos, Radleigh
    BackgroundAuthorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen?s Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate.ResultsFifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106).ConclusionThere is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender of Abstract Presenters at the Annual Meetings of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and American Society of Anesthesiologists: 2016 to 2020 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Pan, S.
    ;
    Shillcutt, S.
    ;
    Oakes, D.
    ;
    Muehlschegel, J.D.
    ;
    Shore-Lesserson, L.
    Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess gender in abstract poster presentations at the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Annual Meetings from 2016 through 2020 to determine possible gender disparities in anesthesia overall as compared to cardiothoracic anesthesia. Design: A bibliometric study Setting: Publicly available data from the SCA and ASA websites. Participants: Presenting and senior authors of abstracts at the SCA and ASA Annual Meetings. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Abstract data on presenting and senior authors were collected for the years 2016 through 2020 for both annual meetings. Observed gender of abstract authors was compared to expected gender based on the gender distribution of cardiac anesthesiologists for the SCA or of all anesthesiologists for the ASA. From 2016 to 2020, the proportion of women senior authors on abstracts was significantly underrepresented (2016-2019, p < 0.05). At the SCA meetings, there was no significant difference in the observed versus expected proportion of women presenting and senior authors. The percentage of woman physicians' abstract-presenting authors at the ASA was overrepresented compared to the expected proportion for each year (2016-2020, p < 0.001). Conclusion: At the SCA, women were appropriately represented as both presenting and senior abstract authors. At the ASA, there was significant overrepresentation of women as presenting authors and underrepresentation of women as senior authors. These results suggested that abstract presentation is not a barrier to academic advancement. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.