PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence Open PDF 
    (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2020)
    Skov, Torsten
    Implicit or unconscious bias is commonly proposed to be responsible for women’s underrepresentation in academia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and discuss the evidence supporting this proposition. Publications about unconscious/implicit gender bias in academia indexed in Scopus or psycInfo up to February 2020 were identified. More than half were published in the period 2018–2020. Studies reporting empirical data were scrutinized for data, as well as analyses showing an association of a measure of implicit or unconscious bias and lesser employment or career opportunities in academia for women than for men. No studies reported empirical evidence as thus defined. Reviews of unconscious bias identified via informal searches referred exclusively to studies that did not self-identify as addressing unconscious bias. Reinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies were common in these reviews. More empirical evidence about unconscious gender bias in academia is needed. With the present state of knowledge, caution should be exercised when interpreting data about gender gaps in academia. Ascribing observed gender gaps to unconscious bias is unsupported by the scientific literature.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender equality in academic gastroenterology: a review of gastroenterology literature over four decades Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Foley, Clare
    ;
    Harewood, Gavin
    ;
    Benz, Eileen
    ;
    Higgins, Luke
    ;
    Gibbons, Eimear
    Background: Historically males have dominated the physician ranks, although in recent years, there has been an increase in the proportion of female doctors to redress this imbalance. With such attention being paid to gender equality in society, this study aimed to characterise the changing prevalence of female authorship of peer-reviewed published research with in the field of gastroenterology. Aims: In order to quantitatively assess the growth of female gastroenterologists, we decided to examine the changing face of gender equality within the field of academic gastroenterology from 1971 to 2010. Methods: All research published in the January and July issues of Gastroenterology from 1971 to 2010 was reviewed. The gender of the first author and last author (considered the senior author) of each study was recorded. Research was subsequently categorised by type: basic science research, clinical trials, and epidemiologic research. Data was analysed in 5-year time periods. Results: Author gender could be identified from a total of 865 abstracts from 80 journal issues. In total, there were 120 (13.8%) female first authors and 91 (10.5%) female senior authors. Female first authorship has tripled since 1995, from 11% (1991–1995) to 32% (2006–2010). Female senior authorship has also tripled since 2000, from 7% (1996–2000) to 24% (2006–2010). Discussion: Results demonstrated that there has been a significant increase in the prevalence of female authorship of published research in Gastroenterology since 1995. The increasing prevalence of females within the field of academic gastroenterology can therefore be extrapolated to demonstrate the growing numbers of female gastroenterologists in the entire field including clinical and academic gastroenterology. © 2021, Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Chan, H.F.
    ;
    Torgler, B.
    In this descriptive study, we aim to show the potential gender differences in academic success, focusing on the top (i.e., most frequently cited) scientists by analyzing the work of more than 94,000 scientists in 21 fields across 43 countries. Our results indicate that female representation in the top tier of scientists strongly varies between countries (11.83%; s.d. = 0.046), with the highest proportion of top women scientists in Finland (20.45%) and the lowest in Saudi Arabia (2.08%). Compared with the total share of females in science, women are underrepresented among the top (i.e., most frequently cited) scholars by 28.52 percentage points. The proportions differ by disciplines, with top women authors best represented in Public Health and Services (36.1%), Communication and Textual Studies (33.7%), Psychology and Cognitive Science (27.5%), and Social Sciences (23%); while the lowest share of women scientists are found in Mathematics and Statistics (6.3%), Engineering (7.2%), and Physics and Astronomy (7.7%). However, despite the low female representation, top women scholars in those three fields conduct (on average) more impactful research than their male colleagues, which is contrary to most other research fields. We also show that female scientific success is positively correlated with a nation’s higher gender equity indicators, lower discriminatory values, and less negative attitudes and preferences towards women. Overall, our findings suggest that scientific fields are still struggling with gender inequality that pervades public life. © 2020, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Cassia-Silva, C
    ;
    Rocha, BS
    ;
    Lievano-Latorre, LF
    ;
    Sobreiro, MB
    ;
    Diele-Viegas, LM
    Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.