PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14

Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics Open PDF
(California Digital Library (CDL), 2026-01-16)
Manes, Akash
;
Lall, Michelle D.
;
Knight, Starr
;
Raja, Ali S.
;
Khosa, Faisal
Introduction: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not. Methods: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index. Results: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals Open PDF
(eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd, 2026-02-20)
Ni, Chaoqun
;
Basson, Isabel
;
Badia, Giovanna
;
Tufenkji, Nathalie
;
Sugimoto, Cassidy R
Women are particularly underrepresented as leading authors of papers in journals of the highest impact factor, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly 5000 active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers to journals of the highest impact (e.g., Science, Nature, or PNAS) and to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men when they do submit. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to high-impact journals because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their 'work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel' as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the 'work would fit better in a more specialized journal'. We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior.
Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective Open PDF
(2021)
Molwitz, I.
;
Yamamura, J.
;
Ozga, A.-K.
;
Wedekind, I.
;
Nguyen, T.-A.
Objectives: To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods: In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results: The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p <.0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p <.0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p <.0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p <.0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion: The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points: • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas. © 2021, The Author(s).
Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study Open PDF
(2020)
Mamtani, Mira
;
Shofer, Frances
;
Mudan, Anita
;
Khatri, Utsha
;
Walker, Rachael
BACKGROUND: Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author. RESULTS: Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
Gender Disparity in the Citation of Surgical Research Open PDF
(2022)
Kane, W.J.
;
Hedrick, T.L.
;
Schroen, A.T.
BACKGROUND: Women surgeons face numerous barriers to career advancement. Inequitable citation of surgical literature may represent a contributing factor to gender disparities in academic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional analysis of publications from 50 top-ranking surgery journals in 2017 and 2018, as defined by the 2019 InCites Journal Citation Reports. The citation rate of publications by women vs men first authors was compared. Similarly, the citation rate of publications by men vs women last authors was also compared. Adjusted regression analyses of citation rates accounted for the time interval since publication as well as the journal within which the article was published, among other potential confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 19,084 publications from 48 surgery journals with a median (interquartile range) of 8 (4 to 15) citations contributing to a median (interquartile range) Journal Impact Factor of 4.0 (3.4 to 4.6) were analyzed. Compared with man-first author publications, woman-first author publications demonstrated a 9% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.91, p < 0.001). Similarly, compared with publications by man-last authors, woman-last author publications demonstrated a 4% lower citation rate (incidence rate ratio 0.96, p = 0.03). These associations persisted after multivariable adjustment for additional confounding factors, however, not on sensitivity analysis of 24 of the highest-ranking journals. CONCLUSIONS: Among top-tier surgical journals, publications by women-first and -last authors were less cited compared with publications by men-first and -last authors, but not among the highest-tier surgical journals. Gender bias may exist in the citation of surgical research, contributing to gender disparities in academic surgery. Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? Open PDF
(2020)
Hiller, Kathryn P.
;
Boulos, Alexandre
;
Tran, Megan M.
;
Cruz, Aristides I.
BACKGROUND: The gender gap among authors publishing research in journals is narrowing in general medicine and various medical and surgical subspecialties. However, little is known regarding the gender gap among authors publishing research in orthopaedic journals. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women first and last authors of original research articles in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017? (2) What is the proportion women first authors of original research by orthopaedic subspecialty from 2006 to 2017? METHODS: A sample of original research publications from the even numbered months of issues of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume (JBJS), and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) were examined from 2006 to 2017. These journals were selected because of their clinical relevance, target audience, and relatively high impact factors. Over the studied period, a single author extracted and reviewed pertinent data, including the gender of the first and last authors and the primary subspecialty of the research article. The senior author refereed disputes regarding the primary subspecialty of each included article. The proportion of women first and last authors in each journal was compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. The proportion of women first authors according to orthopaedic subspecialty in which an article primarily focused its study was also compared between 2006 to 2017 using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 6292 articles, 13% (800) of which were first-authored by women and 10% (604) of which were last-authored by women. From 2006 to 2017, the overall percentage of women first authors in the examined journals increased (from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2017; odds ratio 1.6563 [95 % CI 1.4945 to 1.8356]; p < 0.001). Overall across the period studied, the percentage of women first authors in JBJS was 14% while 12% of first authors in CORR and AJSM were women. Regarding subspecialty, the percentage of women first authorship ranged from 9% in the shoulder subspecialty to 21% in pediatric orthopaedics across all three journals. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the percentage of women first authors in articles published in three high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2006 to 2017. This observed increase is encouraging in terms of promoting gender diversity in orthopaedics and may be reflective of a modest increase in the number of women entering the orthopaedic workforce. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Between 2006 and 2017, the overall number of women first authors in CORR, JBJS, and AJSM modestly increased. This may suggest a nascent narrowing of the gender gap in orthopaedics. Although this is a welcome finding in terms of promoting and encouraging gender diversity in this man-dominated field, the overall percentage of women authorship remains modest, at best. Future investigations should examine whether the modest increase in women first authorship over time found in this study translates into an increased percentage of senior/last authorship in the future, as this may have implications for women orthopaedic workforce retention.
Editorial (Spring) Board? Gender Composition in High-impact General Surgery Journals Over 20 Years Open PDF
(2019)
Harris, Chelsea A.
;
Banerjee, Tanima
;
Cramer, Monica
;
Manz, Shannon
;
Ward, Sarah T.
Objective: To quantify gender composition of 10 high-impact general surgery journals, delineate how board composition has changed over time, and evaluate qualification metrics by gender. Background: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards may contribute to the gender-based achievement gap in surgery. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial board gender composition among 10 high-impact general surgery journals in 1997, 2007, and 2017. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in editors’ H-indices, academic rank, and number of advanced degrees. Differences in editor turnover and multiple board positions were evaluated for each time interval. Results: Over 20 years, the proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 5% to 19%. After controlling for time since board certification, no differences between men and women's number of advanced degrees, H-indices, or academic rank remained significant. Women and men were equally likely to hold multiple board positions (1997 P = 0.74; 2007 P = 0.42; 2017 P = 0.69), but men's editorial board tenure was longer across each time interval (1997–2007 P = 0.003; 2007–2017 P < 0.001; 1997–2017 P = 0.01). Conclusions: Women surgeons have a small but growing presence on surgical editorial boards, and gender-based qualification differences are likely attributable to practice length. Men's longer tenure on editorial boards may drive some of the observed disparity by limiting new appointment opportunities. Strategies such as imposing term limits or instituting merit-based performance reviews may help editorial boards capture the field's changing demographics.
Analysis of editor in chief gender and associated journal variables among 126 pathology journals Open PDF
(2024)
Wang, Dayle K.
;
Clark, Landon M.
;
Stephens, Laura D.
;
Adkins, Brian D.
;
Khan, Shazia S.
OBJECTIVES: Gender equity studies have shown that women are underrepresented in journal editor in chief positions, which confer major professional opportunities and influence. We sought to systematically investigate editor in chief gender and journal attributes within pathology. METHODS: We constructed a journal data set using the Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports databases. We also included official journals of the major medical societies for the 12 pathology subspecialties recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The final data set included 126 journals. We obtained editor in chief gender, impact factor, publication model (ie, hybrid access vs open access), year of founding, and geographic location for all included pathology journals. RESULTS: Women made up only 18% of the 141 total editor in chief positions. This inequity was present irrespective of all pathology journal variables studied. Among 10 journals with 2 editor in chief positions, 5 had only men and 5 had 1 man and 1 woman. All 3 journals with 3 editor in chief positions had 2 men and 1 woman. CONCLUSIONS: Women are significantly underrepresented among editor in chiefs across pathology journals. Journals and affiliated members should advocate for diversity among these influential positions, given their impact on research, science, and medicine.
Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials Open PDF
(2021)
Sayyid, Rashid K.
;
Lokeshwar, Soum D.
;
Luckenbaugh, Amy N.
;
Hall, Mary E.
;
Jones, Caitlin E.
BACKGROUND: Female authorship opportunities have lagged behind those of their male counterparts, with gender disparities most prominent in surgical specialties. Our objective was to determine trends of female first, last, and first or last authorships across time and surgical specialties and whether female first or last authorship was associated with journal impact factor. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of EMBASE (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) databases from inception to December 22, 2017 was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery vs classical surgical techniques. The primary end point was female first, last, and first or last authorship, with gender determined via an online search strategy and verified via Genderize.io. Secondary end point was journal impact factor, recorded from Clarivate Analytics InCites. RESULTS: There were 9,321 articles identified and 489 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixty-eight (13.9%) first and 60 (12.3%) last female authors were identified. A positive linear trend for female first (R2 = 0.35, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p < 0.001), last (R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001), and first or last authorships (R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001) over time was identified. This trend was observed across surgical specialties except for orthopaedics. The highest calculated percentages of female first, last, and first or last authorships by the year 2017 were seen in obstetrics and gynecology (33.8%, 32.0%, and 43.8%, respectively), all significantly lower than the corresponding percentage of the female obstetrics and gynecology workforce in 2017 (57.0%). Neither female first nor last authorship positions were associated with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in female first and last authorship in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the last 3 decades has been observed, but continued efforts to bridge this gender gap are sorely needed.
Gender equity in the scientific nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports: A cross-sectional study Open PDF
(2023)
Gea-Caballero, V.
;
Ruíz de Viñaspre-Hernández, R.
;
Saus-Ortega, C.
;
Celda-Belinchón, L.
;
Santolalla-Arnedo, I.
Background: Scientific activity has been connected to the proven inequality between women and men. To examine the state of gender equality in nursing research by analyzing the representation of male and female as editors and as authors of articles published in scientific journals. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out between September-2019 and May-2020. All the scientific publications published in 115 nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports in the years 2008, 2013, and 2017 were chosen as analysis units. The main variables studied were gender of the “journal editor”; gender of the “first author”, “last author”, “corresponding author”, and “first author in funded articles”. Descriptive and inferential analysis was performed. Results: The proportion of male editors in 2008, 2013, and 2017 was 23.3, 19, and 18.5% respectively, with a male/female ratio of 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5. Male editors are mainly found in the journals of the first quartile (Q1 = 33.8%, ratio1:2), compared to the journals of the fourth quartile (Q4 = 6.6%, ratio1:14), p < 0.01. The male authorship position was “last author” (30.9%, ratio1:2), “corresponding author” (23.3%, ratio 1:3), “first author” (22.1%, ratio 1:4) and “first author in funded articles” (21.8%, ratio 1:4). Furthermore, in 19.5%, of the articles there were more male authors. The percentage of articles with male authorship increased from 2008 to 2017, “first author” (21.1–23.4%; p < 0.01), “last author” (30.0–31.1%; p = 0.22), “corresponding author” (22.5–24.2; p = 0.01), and “first author in funded articles” (18.1–25.9%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Men are over-represented in the editor role in the most prestigious nursing journals. There are a higher proportion of male authors in the main positions of authorship. Copyright © 2023 Gea-Caballero, Ruíz de Viñaspre-Hernández, Saus-Ortega, Celda-Belinchón, Santolalla-Arnedo, Marques-Sule and Juárez-Vela.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results