PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.MaleViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Reviews

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Marhoffer, Elizabeth A.
    ;
    Ein-Alshaeba, Samer
    ;
    Grimshaw, Alyssa A.
    ;
    Holleck, Jürgen L.
    ;
    Rudikoff, Benjamin
    PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.
  • 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,
    Pre- and post-COVID-19 gender trends in authorship for paediatric radiology articles worldwide: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Kamran, Rakhshan
    ;
    Jackman, Liam
    ;
    Chan, Cynthia
    ;
    Lee, Ann C.
    ;
    Kamran, Aleeza
    BACKGROUND: Gender inequalities in academic medicine persist despite progress over the past decade. Evidence-based targeted interventions are needed to reduce gender inequalities. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on gender trends in authorship of paediatric radiology research worldwide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to May 29, 2023, with no restrictions on country of origin. Screening and data extraction occurred independently and in duplicate. Gender of first, last, and corresponding authors were determined using an artificial intelligence-powered, validated, multinational database ( www.genderize.io ). Two time periods were categorised according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering: pre-COVID (prior to March 2020) and peak and post-COVID (March 2020 onwards). One-sample binomial testing was used to analyse proportion of authorship based on gender. Categorical variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and compared using testing chi-square or Fisher exact testing, with a threshold of P<0.05 representing statistical significance. RESULTS: In total, 922 articles were included with 39 countries represented. A statistically significant difference in authorship based on gender persisted during the peak and post-COVID time period (March 2020 onwards) where women represented a statistically significant lower proportion of last (35.5%) and corresponding (42.7%) authors (P<0.001, P=0.001, respectively). Statistically significant differences for first authors were not found in either period (P=0.08 and P=0.48). CONCLUSION: This study identifies differences in gender trends for authorship in paediatric radiology research worldwide. Future efforts to increase authorship by women are needed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trial characteristics associated with under-enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Whitelaw, Sera
    ;
    Sullivan, Kristen
    ;
    Eliya, Yousif
    ;
    Alruwayeh, Mohammad
    ;
    Thabane, Lehana
    AIMS: To evaluate temporal trends in the enrolment of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) published in high-impact journals, and assess RCT characteristics associated with under-enrolment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to May 2019 in journals with impact factor ≥10. We included RCTs that recruited adults with HFrEF. We used a 20% threshold below the sex distribution of HFrEF to define under-enrolment. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess trial characteristics independently associated with under-enrolment. We included 317 RCTs. Among the 183 097 participants, mean (standard deviation) age was 63.0 (7.0) years and 25.5% were female. Females were under-enrolled in 71.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-76.6%] of the RCTs; enrolment did not increase significantly between 2000-2019. Sex-related eligibility criteria [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.16; P = 0.046]; recruitment in ambulatory settings (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.81; P = 0.003); trial coordination in North America (OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.09-18.07; P = 0.037), Europe (OR 6.79, 95% CI 1.63-27.39; P = 0.018) and Asia (OR 9.33, 95% CI 1.40-12.40; P = 0.033); drug (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.96-7.36; P < 0.001) and device/surgical interventions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16-9.43; P = 0.002); and men in first and last authorship position (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-3.54; P = 0.047) were associated with under-enrolment of females. CONCLUSIONS: Females were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution in a majority of high-impact HFrEF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends between 2000 and 2019. Trial characteristics and gender of trial leaders were associated with under-enrolment.
  • Item type:Publication,
    [Glass ceiling and gender inequalities in the careers of women academics in biomedical sciences] Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Segovia-Saiz, Carla
    ;
    Briones-Vozmediano, Erica
    ;
    Pastells-Peiró, Roland
    ;
    González-María, Esther
    ;
    Gea-Sánchez, Montserrat
    OBJECTIVE: To identify in the international scientific literature the obstacles and potential promoters for the advancement of women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences during their professional careers. METHOD: PubMed, Scopus, CinahlPlus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched for articles published in English and Spanish between January 2006 and December 2016 on the phenomenon of the glass ceiling in women academics and researchers in biomedical sciences. The screening was carried out by independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 2254 studies were found, of which 23 were included in the review. The obstacles identified for the promotion of women academics and/or researchers in biomedical sciences are: gender bias in the evaluation of research results, individualism and lack of collaboration, women's lack of influence, the existence of gender inequalities in access to employment. The perception of sexism and discrimination in the work environment, and the difficulties in reconciling work and family life. The promoting elements are: examples of women in leadership positions, mentoring, facilitating conciliation, transparency in recruitment, participation in decision-making, gender assessment of research, awareness of gender inequalities in institutions, promoting collaboration, and pay equity. CONCLUSIONS: By enhancing the elements favouring the promotion of academic women in biomedical sciences would help to reduce the glass ceiling in the career paths of women academics and health science researchers by increasing their participation, leadership and representation. A change of organizational and institutional values is required to achieve this.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Roper, Rachel L.
    The percentage of women employed in professional scientific positions has been low but is increasing over time. The U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have both implemented programs to improve women's participation in science, and many universities and companies have diversity and equity programs. While most faculty and scientists believe that they are fair and unbiased, numerous well-designed studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals show that gender bias in sciences and medicine is widespread and persistent today in both faculty and students. Recent studies show that gender bias affects student grading, professional hiring, mentoring, tenure, promotion, respect, grant proposal success, and pay. In addition, sexual harassment remains a significant barrier. Fortunately, several studies provide evidence that programs that raise conscious awareness of gender bias can improve equity in science, and there are a number of recommendations and strategies for improving the participation of women.