PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Gender DisparitiesViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • 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 < 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,
    Disparities in publication patterns by gender, race and ethnicity based on a survey of a random sample of authors Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Hopkins, A.L.
    ;
    Jawitz, J.W.
    ;
    McCarty, C.
    ;
    Goldman, A.
    ;
    Basu, N.B.
    Gender and racial disparities have greatly diminished in academia over the last 30 years, but attrition rates among women and minority faculty still remain high. In this paper we examine gender and racial disparities in publishing, an activity that is important for career advancement, but has not been incorporated adequately into the debate on faculty attrition. We surveyed a random sample of 1,065 authors who contributed a peer-reviewed journal article indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) in 2005 and at least one other article during the period of 2001-2004 in four academic disciplines representing natural sciences (biochemistry and water resources) and social sciences (anthropology and economics). We then report on the relationships between demographic variables (gender and race/ethnicity) and career-related variables (academic rank, discipline, and h-index) of these authors. Our findings show that at every career level and within each discipline, women were under-represented in academic positions compared to men and an even lower percentage of women published at each academic level than were employed at that level. Further, we found that women had lower h-indices than men in all four disciplines surveyed. Societal and biological constraints may reduce women's ability to obtain research intensive positions and contribute to these gender disparities. Hispanics and blacks were underrepresented among individuals awarded with doctoral degrees, doctorate recipients employed in academia, and academics publishing in WoS as compared to their representation in the population. Whites, Asians, and Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were adequately or over-represented in each category. Additionally, blacks had lower h-indices than the other ethnic groups across the disciplines surveyed. Compared to women, attrition among blacks and Hispanics appears to occur earlier in their career development. Cumulative experiences with discrimination and stereotypes may partly explain higher attrition and lower publication productivity among blacks and Hispanics. © 2012 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • 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.