PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Impact Factor

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Author self-citation in orthodontics is associated with author origin and gender Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Livas, C.
    ;
    Delli, K.
    ;
    Pandis, N.
    Background: The aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics. Methods: Six orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics. Results: Medians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0–50) and 1 (range 0–19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors. Conclusions: Authors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature. © 2021, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Khosa, F.
    ;
    Stewart, M.
    ;
    Liu, L.
    ;
    Ding, J.
    ;
    Rahmim, O.
    Purpose: Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue. Results: Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 – 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 – 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 – 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 – 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 – 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals. Conclusion: 60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals. © 2024 The Author(s)
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender-inclusive research instructions in author submission guidelines: results of a cross-sectional study of obstetrics and gynecology journals Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Dunn, M.C.
    ;
    Rosenfeld, E.B.
    ;
    Ananth, C.V.
    ;
    Hutchinson-Colas, J.
    ;
    Brandt, J.S.
    BACKGROUND: People with marginalized gender identities, including people with transgender and gender-expansive identities, have been historically excluded from research. Professional societies recommend the use of inclusive language in research, but it is uncertain how many obstetrics and gynecology journals mandate the use of gender-inclusive research practices in their author guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of “inclusive” journals with specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines; to compare these journals with “noninclusive” journals based on publisher, country of origin, and several metrics of research influence; and to qualitatively evaluate the components of inclusive research in author submission guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of all obstetrics and gynecology journals in the Journal Citation Reports, a scientometric resource, was conducted in April 2022. Of note, One journal was indexed twice (due to a name change), and only the journal with the 2020 Journal Impact Factor was included. Author submission guidelines were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to identify inclusive vs noninclusive journals based on whether journals had gender-inclusive research instructions. Journal characteristics, including publisher, country of origin, impact metrics (eg, Journal Impact Factor), normalized metrics (eg, Journal Citation Indicator), and source metrics (eg, number of citable items), were evaluated for all journals. The median (interquartile range) and median difference between inclusive and noninclusive journals with bootstrapped 95% confidence interval were calculated for journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors. In addition, inclusive research instructions were thematically compared to identify trends. RESULTS: Author submission guidelines were reviewed for all 121 active obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Overall, 41 journals (33.9%) were inclusive, and 34 journals (41.0%) with 2020 Journal Impact Factors were inclusive. Most inclusive journals were English-language publications and originated in the United States and Europe. In an analysis of journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors, inclusive journals had a higher median Journal Impact Factor (3.4 [interquartile range, 2.2–4.3] vs 2.5 [interquartile range, 1.9–3.0]; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2–1.7) and median 5-year Journal Impact Factor (3.6 [interquartile range, 2.8–4.3] vs 2.6 [interquartile range, 2.1–3.2; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.3–1.6) than noninclusive journals. Inclusive journals had higher normalized metrics, including a median 2020 Journal Citation Indicator (1.1 [interquartile range, 0.7–1.3] vs 0.8 [interquartile range, 0.6–1.0]; median difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.5) and median normalized Eigenfactor (1.4 [interquartile range, 0.7–2.2] vs 0.7 [interquartile range, 0.4–1.5]; median difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.2–1.5) than noninclusive journals. Moreover, inclusive journals had higher source metrics, including more citable items, total items, and Open Access Gold subscriptions, than noninclusive journals. The qualitative analysis of gender-inclusive research instructions revealed that most inclusive journals recommend that researchers use gender-neutral language and provide specific examples of inclusive language. CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of obstetrics and gynecology journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors have gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines. This study underscores the urgent need for most obstetrics and gynecology journals to update their author submission guidelines to include specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices. © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bias against research on gender bias Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Cislak, Aleksandra
    ;
    Formanowicz, Magdalena
    ;
    Saguy, Tamar
    The bias against women in academia is a documented phenomenon that has had detrimental consequences, not only for women, but also for the quality of science. First, gender bias in academia affects female scientists, resulting in their underrepresentation in academic institutions, particularly in higher ranks. The second type of gender bias in science relates to some findings applying only to male participants, which produces biased knowledge. Here, we identify a third potentially powerful source of gender bias in academia: the bias against research on gender bias. In a bibliometric investigation covering a broad range of social sciences, we analyzed published articles on gender bias and race bias and established that articles on gender bias are funded less often and published in journals with a lower Impact Factor than articles on comparable instances of social discrimination. This result suggests the possibility of an underappreciation of the phenomenon of gender bias and related research within the academic community. Addressing this meta-bias is crucial for the further examination of gender inequality, which severely affects many women across the world.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis Open PDF 
    (2013)
    Barrios, M.
    ;
    Villarroya, A.
    ;
    Borrego, Á.
    This study aims to identify possible gender inequalities in the scholarly output of researchers in the field of psychology in Spain. A sample of 522 papers and reviews published in 2007 was extracted from the Thomson ISI Web of Science. The presence of women, the collaboration pattern and the impact of these scientific publications were analyzed. The results show that the average number of female researchers per paper was 0. 42 (SD 0. 33) and that 42. 3 % of the papers had a female researcher as the first author. Moreover, the proportion of female authors of a paper was statistically significantly higher when the first author was female. Studies carried out in cooperation with other Spanish or international institutions had fewer female authors than studies conducted at a single center. The impact of the papers, measured by the journal impact factor and the number of citations, was independent of the authors' gender or the proportion of female authors. In summary, the study highlights a gender imbalance in Spanish scientific output in Psychology, and a higher proportion of male researchers in international networks. © 2012 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.