PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.ItalyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Institutional

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Gap in Scientific Publications on COVID-19 in Italy During the First Wave of the Pandemic: An Observational Study Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Mazzalai, Elena
    ;
    Turatto, Federica
    ;
    De Vito, Corrado
    Background: Worldwide, concerns rise on how COVID-19 pandemic impacted heavily on women, even on those belonging to the scientific community. The Italian scientific production regarding the COVID-19 throughout the first months of the health emergency could help to understand the heft of female researchers in this unique period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the gender gap in the scientific production on COVID-19 in Italy during the first months of the pandemic. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted and, for each included study, first and last author's gender, type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation, journal's Impact Factor (IF) and specialization were extracted. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. Results: 22.2% of the articles were signed by a woman as first author, 18.1% as last authors. Female authorship was less frequent than male authorship regardless of the type of study, number of co-authors, type of affiliation and field of specialization. Conclusion: This analysis reveal a low prevalence of studies with a female first or last author and suggests that the low share of female authors publishing on COVID-19 during the considered timespan is a transversal issue throughout the Italian medical field.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Marini, G.
    ;
    Meschitti, V.
    In this paper we aim to understand if gender makes a difference in the path to promotion to full professor in Italian universities, drawing on data from 2013 to 2016. The new promotion system pursuant Gelmini Law (210/2010) in Italy implies to go through two steps. First, they have to obtain the national ASN system (fit-for-the-role national filter), based on merit measured via bibliometric and non-bibliometric indicators. This step does not mean to get a position, it only means to be able to apply for it at institutional level. We believe that discrimination based on gender may happen especially at institutional level as in comparison to ASN there is less transparency and more autonomy at institutional level. It is also hypothesised that discrimination based on gender may differ according to the percentage of women already at full professor rank by disciplinary field. We investigate gender inequality using a binary variable (promoted or not promoted along 2013 until 2016) controlling by scientific productivity, normalised number of available vacancies, result of national research evaluation (VQR—department of candidate’s affiliation), age, current rank-and-file position. Multilevel logistic regression demonstrates that among those who obtained the ASN and at parity of other conditions, men have around 24% more probability to be promoted at parity of scientific production, which reveals a relevant gender discrimination. Our findings have implications on theory about inequality regimes and might serve to reflect on how to improve practices at institutional level. © 2018, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ruggieri, R.
    ;
    Pecoraro, F.
    ;
    Luzi, D.
    Gender equality and Open Access (OA) are priorities within the European Research Area and cross-cutting issues in European research program H2020. Gender and openness are also key elements of responsible research and innovation. However, despite the common underlying targets of fostering an inclusive, transparent and sustainable research environment, both issues are analysed as independent topics. This paper represents a first exploration of the inter-linkages between gender and OA analysing the scientific production of researchers of the Italian National Research Council under a gender perspective integrated with the different OA publications modes. A bibliometric analysis was carried out for articles published in the period 2016–2018 and retrieved from the Web of Science. Results are presented constantly analysing CNR scientific production in relation to gender, disciplinary fields and OA publication modes. These variables are also used when analysing articles that receive financial support. Our results indicate that gender disparities in scientific production still persist particularly in STEM disciplines, while the gender gap is the closest to parity in medical and agricultural sciences. A positive dynamic toward OA publishing and women’s scientific production is shown when disciplines with well-established open practices are related to articles supported by funds. A slightly higher women’s propensity toward OA is shown when considering Gold OA, or authorships with women in the first and last article by-line position. The prevalence of Italian funded articles with women’s contributions published in Gold OA journals seems to confirm this tendency, especially if considering the weak enforcement of the Italian OA policies. © 2021, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Case Study of Pluralism in Economics: The Heterodox Glass Ceiling in Italy Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2018)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D'Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    Quantitative measures of supposed scientific ‘quality’ (or ‘impact’) based on bibliometric indicators are used as the primary or exclusive tools of research evaluation in a growing number of countries. The negative impact of this method of evaluation on pluralism in economic teaching and research has been documented in Italy, France, Australia and the United Kingdom. We provide new evidence for Italy by investigating the CVs and publications of all candidates for the ‘national scientific qualification’, which is needed to access all tenured Italian academic positions. With respect to past evidence, we focus on the homologation of research topics and methods as well as the delegitimization of particular publication outlets. Our analysis has relevant implications internationally. First, research evaluation aimed at identifying ‘excellence’ often boils down to (as in the case of Italy) the adoption of rankings of supposedly top journals, which systematically discriminate against heterodox journals. Second, the legitimacy of academic research published in the form of books and book chapters must be reclaimed. Third, heterodox economists risk discrimination not so much because of their methods or policy recommendations, but because of the topics and research fields they investigate.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The effects of gender, age and academic rank on research diversification Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Abramo, G.
    ;
    D’Angelo, C.A.
    ;
    Di Costa, F.
    In this work we analyze the combined effects of gender, age and academic rank on the propensity of individual scholars to diversify their scientific activity. The aspect of research diversification is measured along three main dimensions, namely its extent and intensity and the cognitive relatedness of the fields of diversification. We apply two regression models to the dataset of scientific output of all Italian professors in the sciences over the period 2004–2008. The aim is to understand how personal and organizational traits can influence individual behaviors in terms of research diversification. Among other considerations, our findings urge caution in identifying research diversification as a co-determinant of the gender productivity gap between males and females. © 2017, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Abramo, G.
    ;
    D’Angelo, C.A.
    ;
    Di Costa, F.
    This work analyzes the differences in collaboration behavior between males and females among a particular type of scholars: top scientists, and as compared to non top scientists. The field of observation consists of the Italian academic system and the co-authorships of scientific publications by 11,145 professors. The results obtained from a cross-sectional analysis covering the 5-year period 2006–2010 show that there are no significant differences in the overall propensity to collaborate in the top scientists of the two genders. At the level of single disciplines there are no differences in collaboration behavior, except in the case of: (1) international collaborations, for mathematics and chemistry—where the propensity for collaboration is greater for males; and (2) extramural domestic collaborations in physics, in which it is the females that show greater propensity for collaboration. Because international collaboration is positively correlated to research performance, findings can inform science policy aimed at increasing the representation of female top performers. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Abramo, G.
    ;
    Aksnes, D.W.
    ;
    D'Angelo, C.A.
    In this study, the scientific performance of Italian and Norwegian university professors is analysed using bibliometric indicators. The study is based on over 36,000 individuals and their publication output during the period 2011-2015. Applying a multidimensional indicator in which several aspects of the research performance are captured, we find large differences in the performance of men and women. These gender differences are evident across all analysed levels, such as country, field, and academic position. However, most of the gender differences can be explained by the tails of the distributions - in particular, there is a much higher proportion of men among the top 10 % performing scientists. For the remaining 90 % of the population, the gender differences are practically non-existent. The results of the two countries, which differ in terms of the societal role of women, are contrasting. Further, we discuss possible biases that are intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators, which might disfavour female researchers. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd.