PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.HumansViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool: exposing gender bias and gender inequities in health research Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2017)
    Morgan, T.
    ;
    Williams, L.A.
    ;
    Gott, M.
    Quality appraisal tools used in systematic reviews to evaluate health literature do not adequately address issues related to gender. This oversight is significant because disparities between genders have been identified as a major health equity concern, and systematic reviews are regarded as a powerful means for informing policy that could redress gender inequities. In this paper, we present our Feminist Quality Appraisal Tool that offers researchers a template to undertake a comprehensive gendered analysis of studies they review. Informed by a feminist perspective, the tool addresses issues of power, gender and inequity, thereby giving researchers the means to interrogate the scientific rigour of systematic reviews that focus on gender. Specifically, our tool outlines ways gender can be critically examined in terms of study design, data collection, analysis, discussion and recommendations. We argue that this tool has the potential to improve the provision of public health by providing solid understandings and critical reflections on the reasons why women continue to face barriers in their access to optimal health care. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Madden, Caoimhe
    ;
    O'Malley, Róisín
    ;
    O'Connor, Paul
    ;
    O'Dowd, Emily
    ;
    Byrne, Dara
    CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology Open PDF 
    (2005)
    Kliewer, Mark A.
    ;
    Freed, Kelly S.
    ;
    DeLong, David M.
    ;
    Pickhardt, Perry J.
    ;
    Provenzale, James M.
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for each reviewer. We also sent a questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer. The demographic profiles were correlated with the average quality score for each reviewer. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and analysis of variance modeling. Reviewer quality scores were also correlated with the scoring of individual reviews and ultimate disposition of 196 manuscripts sent to the AJR during the same period. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 821 reviewers (83.0%), for whom quality scores were available for 714 (87.0%). Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (p = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (p = 0.72), years of reviewing (p = 0.26), academic rank (p = 0.10), or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (p = 0.40). The quality score of the reviewers showed no variation by subspecialty (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The highest-rated AJR reviewers tended to be young and from academic institutions. The quality of peer review did not correlate with the sex, academic rank, or subspecialty of the reviewer.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Kern-Goldberger, Adina R.
    ;
    James, Richard
    ;
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    ;
    Miller, Emily S.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of authors and reviewers are masked, may present an opportunity for scientific literature to increase equity and reduce gender-based biases. This systematic review of studies evaluates the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on the publication rates by perceived author gender. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched using the terms "blind," "peer review," "gender," "woman," and "author." All published literature in the English language from database inception through 2020 was queried. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective experimental and observational studies comparing double-blind to single-blind peer review strategies examining impact on publication decisions by author gender were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The extracted data were primarily descriptive and included information on study design, sample size, primary outcome, major findings, and scientific discipline. The studies were characterized on the basis of design and whether the results demonstrated an impact of double-blind peer review on review scores and publication decision by perceived author gender. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 1717 articles were identified, 123 were reviewed, and 8 were included, encompassing 5 prospective experimental studies and 3 observational studies. Four studies demonstrated a difference in the acceptance rate or review score on the basis of perceived author gender, whereas the other 4 studies demonstrated no differences when the author gender was anonymized. CONCLUSION: Studies evaluating the impact of double-blind peer review on author gender demonstrate mixed results, but there is reasonable evidence that gender bias may exist in scientific publishing and that double-blinding can mitigate its impact. Further evaluation of the processes in place to create the body of evidence that clinicians and researchers rely on is essential to reduce bias, particularly in female-majority fields such as obstetrics and gynecology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    An International Survey of Female Dental Students' Perceptions About Gender Bias and Sexual Misconduct at Four Dental Schools. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ivanoff, Chris S.
    ;
    Luan, Diana M.
    ;
    Hottel, Timothy L.
    ;
    Andonov, Bogomil
    ;
    Ricci Volpato, Luiz Evaristo
    As women enter the dental profession in increasing numbers in North America and around the world, the questions of how they perceive their environment and what kind of barriers they face are important subjects to be addressed. The aim of this study was to assess and compare women dental students' perceptions of bias in their environment and experiences of sexual misconduct at one dental school in each of four countries. In spring 2017, 1,293 female students at four dental schools in the U.S., Bulgaria, Brazil, and India were invited to participate in a 24-item survey developed by researchers from the four countries; 990 students responded (response rate 76.6%). The overall majority of the respondents reported thinking the admissions process at their school was fair (79.7%); but a fifth of U.S. and Brazilian students perceived their school was not fully embracing of females, with most Bulgarian students agreeing (87.2%) and all Indian students disagreeing. Most respondents overall perceived that male faculty members did not favor male students (79.5%) and did not think there was discrimination against female students by faculty (87.1%), but half of the U.S. respondents reported feeling discriminated against by both male faculty and male students. When the responses "I've been verbally harassed" and "I've been somewhat verbally harassed" were combined, 10.1% of the U.S. respondents reported verbal harassment, compared to 20% of Brazilian, 15% of Bulgarian, and 2% of Indian respondents. When the responses "I've been sexually assaulted" and "I've been somewhat sexually assaulted" were combined, 6% of U.S. respondents reported being sexually assaulted, compared to 6.2% of Brazilian, 2.5% of Bulgarian, and none of the Indian respondents. Almost half (46.9%) of these students overall perceived their school was not or only somewhat vigilant about issues of sexual misconduct, and only 54% said they would feel comfortable or very comfortable reporting misconduct. These results suggest that academic dental institutions in all four countries need improvements to make their environments more equitable and free of bias and sexual misconduct.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Re: “Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer Reviewed Medical Publications” Bernardi et al Open PDF 
    (Elsevier B. V., 2020)
    Ibrahim, H.
    ;
    Archuleta, S.
    ;
    Stadler, D.J.
    ;
    Cofrancesco, J.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Holman, Luke
    ;
    Stuart-Fox, Devi
    ;
    Hauser, Cindy E.
    Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Willis, Malachi
    ;
    Jozkowski, Kristen N.
    The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Williams, Wadsworth A.
    ;
    Garvey, Katherine L.
    ;
    Goodman, Denise M.
    ;
    Lauderdale, Diane S.
    ;
    Ross, Lainie Friedman
    OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ending Gender Inequality in Cardiovascular Clinical Trial Leadership: JACC Review Topic of the Week Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Van Spall, Harriette G. C.
    ;
    Lala, Anuradha
    ;
    Deering, Thomas F.
    ;
    Casadei, Barbara
    ;
    Zannad, Faiez
    Women are under-represented as leaders of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials, representing 1 in 10 lead authors of cardiovascular trials published in high-impact journals. Although the proportion of cardiovascular specialists who are women has increased in recent years, the proportion of cardiovascular clinical trialists who are women has not. This gap, underpinned by systemic sexism, has not been adequately addressed. The benefits of diverse randomized controlled trial leadership extend to patients and professionals. In this position statement, we present strategies adopted by some organizations to end gender inequality in research leadership. We offer an actionable roadmap for early-career researchers, scientists, academic institutions, professional societies, trial sponsors, and journals to follow, with the goal of harnessing the strength of women and under-represented groups as research leaders and facilitating a just culture in the cardiovascular clinical trial enterprise.