PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Global Health

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item type:Publication,
    National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of psychiatric research excellence: Analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2 % scholars worldwide (2017–2023) Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-02)
    Riad, Abanoub
    ;
    Alkasaby, Muhammad
    ;
    Changchroenkul, Nisarat
    ;
    Koščík, Michal
    Background Research excellence is increasingly used as a benchmark for academic evaluation in medical sciences, including psychiatry. However, bibliometric analyses often prioritize productivity over quality. This study examined national, institutional, and individual determinants of psychiatric research excellence using a multi-level ecological framework. Methods We analyzed the Stanford–Elsevier Lists of the top 2 % scholars (2017–2023), incorporating 51 independent variables. These included: (a) national determinants grouped into five domains (mental healthcare, gender equity, socioeconomic development, budgetary policies, and disease burden), (b) institutional factors derived from global and discipline-specific rankings, and (c) individual factors of gender and academic age. The primary outcome was the number of excellent psychiatric scholars (EPS), with secondary indicators including citation counts, modified H-index, composite score, and self-citation share. Results Psychiatric research excellence was concentrated in high-income, English-speaking countries, with significant institutional elitism. A small number of institutions hosted a disproportionate share of EPS. Gender disparities persisted, with female representation negatively associated with national gender gaps in employment and education, but positively linked to government spending on education. Academic age positively correlated with citation-based performance metrics. Multivariable models confirmed the explanatory roles of gender, academic age, official language, gender equity, and human development. Conclusion Psychiatric research excellence reflects systemic advantages related to income, language, institutional prestige, and gender equity. Equitable funding, support for emerging research environments, and expanded international collaboration are essential to fostering broader participation in high-impact psychiatric research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Merriman, Rebekah
    ;
    Galizia, Ilaria
    ;
    Tanaka, Sonja
    ;
    Sheffel, Ashley
    ;
    Buse, Kent
    INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Health policy, 2018)
    Zhou, Charlie D.
    ;
    Head, Michael G.
    ;
    Marshall, Dominic C.
    ;
    Gilbert, Barnabas J.
    ;
    El-Harasis, Majd A.
    Objectives To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data. Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.