PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.LeadershipViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.University Rankings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Leadership Ceiling in Global Radiology: A 2024–2026 High-Throughput Algorithmic Audit of Gender Representation in Senior Authorship Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2026-07)
    Wang, Tanche (Jimmy)
    Rationale and objectives: To establish a 2026 global benchmark for senior authorship gender representation in high-impact imaging journals and identify structural barriers to digital metadata visibility. Materials and methods: An algorithmic audit analyzed 6454 publications from seven leading radiology journals compiled between January 2024 and February 2026. Senior author gender was inferred utilizing the validated gender-guesser name-inference engine. Pearson's Chi-squared test compared gender distributions across journals. A dynamic, web-based dashboard was developed using a Python-Streamlit framework to facilitate continuous, live data exploration. Results: The global female senior authorship rate across successfully classified data was established at 17.70% (1144/3717). Significant variation was found by journal (x2=34.19, p < 0.0001). The Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR) demonstrated the highest representation (37.17%), while technical subspecialty journals showed lower parity. A profound "Metadata Gap" was identified, with 42.42% (2737/6454) of the total cohort lacking identifiable gender markers or sufficient name strings in professional publishing summaries to allow for algorithmic inference. Conclusion: A profound gender gap persists in global senior research leadership within imaging specialties. Enhancing publishing metadata hygiene is an essential step for accurate institutional equity tracking. Informatics-driven auditing via live dashboards provides a scalable roadmap for modern departmental and institutional accountability.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Chaudron, Linda H.
    ;
    Dandar, Valerie
    ;
    Lautenberger, Diana
    ;
    Bunton, Sarah A.
    ;
    Gordon, Lynn K.
    Purpose: Research about academic medicine women faculty has focused on comparisons of men and women or specific groups who achieved leadership. To better understand the low percentages of women in academic medicine leadership, attention should be paid to the career continuum within genders. Study findings will inform policies and programs to support women in building careers and acquiring leadership positions. Materials and Methods: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey data are used to describe and compare women assistant, associate and full professors' perceptions of (1) career development and advancement opportunities, and (2) a culture and climate that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specific similarities and differences with men are highlighted. Results: Fifty-nine percent of women respondents were assistant, 25% associate, and 16% full professors. Associate professors of both genders were the least satisfied on the main measures. Women were less satisfied than men at each career stage across the majority of variables. Among women, fewer than half of full and associate professors, and 52% of assistant professors believe they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. While the majority at all ranks (69%-75%) report feeling respected in the workplace, among those who did not, the highest percentage of disrespect based on gender was among associate professors. Conclusions: The perceptions of >7,500 academic medicine women faculty, representing different generations and ranks, underscore the need to broadly address gender inequity and sexism throughout the career continuum. It identifies the mid-career stage as a challenging experience for both men and women. Women, especially at the associate professor rank, remain a critically dissatisfied and underresourced group that is at risk for underutilization and potentially exit from academic medicine. All ranks of women need career development and equitable policies to support their sense of belonging and career advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Inequality in Leadership Positions in Neurology and Neurosurgery Journals and Societies Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Apaydin, Aydin Sinan
    ;
    Emekli, Inci
    OBJECTIVE: Gender inequalities persist in several areas of medicine, despite the growing number of female doctors and medical students. In this study, we aimed to reveal the gender inequality in the top journals' editorial boards and national societies' leadership positions in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study that uses public information accessed through the internet via journals' and academic societies' public websites. The medical journals are selected and included according to their h5-index in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. We evaluated the gender composition of the editorial boards and academic societies' leadership positions. RESULTS: The female editorial board member ratio was 44.0% in the top 10 neurology journals. However, this ratio was significantly decreased to 29.7% in the other journals(P < 0.001). The top 10 neurosurgery journals had a female editorial board member ratio of 13.7%. This ratio was significantly decreased to 5.3% in the other 10 journals with lower h5-index(P < 0.001). A significantly lower number of female individuals are present in the editorial boards of the neurosurgery journals than in neurology(P < 0.001). The female president or delegate ratio was 19.3% in the World Federation of Neurology-affiliated countries, and it was 4% in the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies-affiliated countries. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, there is a significant gender inequality among editorial board members. The position of neurosurgical societies and journals is far different than the field of neurology. Furthermore, these findings should be evaluated as a continuum of the gender inequality in the professional societies' executive boards and delegates representing the national academical community.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Influences for Gender Disparity in Academic Neuroradiology. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ahmadi, M.
    ;
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Sanelli, P. C.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Chahal, T.
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There has been extensive interest in promoting gender equality within radiology, a predominately male field. In this study, our aim was to quantify gender representation in neuroradiology faculty rankings and determine any related factors that may contribute to any such disparity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the academic and administrative faculty members of neuroradiology divisions for all on-line listed programs in the US and Canada. After excluding programs that did not fulfill our selection criteria, we generated a short list of 85 US and 8 Canadian programs. We found 465 faculty members who met the inclusion criteria for our study. We used Elsevier's SCOPUS for gathering the data pertaining to the publications, H-index, citations, and tenure of the productivity of each faculty member. RESULTS: Gender disparity was insignificant when analyzing academic ranks. There are more men working in neuroimaging relative to women (χ(2) = 0.46; P = .79). However, gender disparity was highly significant for leadership positions in neuroradiology (χ(2) = 6.76; P = .009). The median H-index was higher among male faculty members (17.5) versus female faculty members (9). Female faculty members have odds of 0.84 compared with male faculty members of having a higher H-index, adjusting for publications, citations, academic ranks, leadership ranks, and interaction between gender and publications and gender and citations (9). CONCLUSIONS: Neuroradiology faculty members follow the same male predominance seen in many other specialties of medicine. In this study, issues such as mentoring, role models, opportunities to engage in leadership/research activities, funding opportunities, and mindfulness regarding research productivity are explored.