PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Periodicals as TopicViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 28
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals. Open PDF 
    (2026-05-01)
    Lee, Emily Hyunmin
    ;
    Gomes, Zoya
    ;
    Kim, Jinny Minji
    ;
    Liblik, Kiera
    ;
    Travis, Nicole
    INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been underrepresented in leadership positions and academia in cardiothoracic surgery, creating barriers to career advancement and limiting role models for trainees. While publications are used to measure success in academia, invited articles such as editorials often represent a formal recognition of expertise. The objective of this study was to identify trends in the gender of editorial authors published in cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: Editorials published between 2018 and 2022 across 16 peer-reviewed cardiothoracic surgery journals were analyzed. Author gender was estimated using a validated tool (https://gender-api.com/) with additional verification using available institutional profiles. RESULTS: In total, 806 editorials were published with a total of 1,858 authors (293 women, 16%). Women authors were predominantly from the United States of America (45%) followed by India (9%) and Germany (8%). The percentage of women first authors increased between 2018 and 2022 (P < 0.001); 9% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 17% in 2020, 16% in 2021, and 23% in 2022. A similar trend was observed for women senior authorship (P < 0.0001) (6% in 2018, 9% in 2019, 14% in 2020, 15% in 2021, and 18% in 2022) as well as for editorials with all-women authorship (P < 0.0001), increasing steadily from 9% in 2018 to 20% in 2022. CONCLUSION: Women authorship in editorials published in cardiothoracic surgery journals has steadily increased in recent years. Despite progress, women still make up less than a quarter of first and senior authors, highlighting a critical gap in gender equity in academic leadership that must be urgently addressed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Persistent gender disparity in leading dental publications across 4 decades: an observational study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Moreno, Laura Barreto
    ;
    Franco, Marina Christ
    ;
    Karam, Sarah Arangurem
    ;
    van de Sande, Françoise Hélène
    ;
    Montagner, Anelise Fernandes
    OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the differences in the gender of the first and last authors in the most-cited dental articles over the last 4 decades. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Articles were obtained through an electronic search of the most-cited articles in dentistry by decade (total n = 400 articles). The 100 most-cited studies in each decade (1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, and 2010-2019), with any study design, with results in dentistry were eligible. The gender of the first and last authors was determined using the Genderize database. Comparative evaluation of gender distribution in general and across the 4 decades was performed with the Chi-square test, and the contribution of variables on the citation rate of articles was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: There were statistical differences between the gender distributions, with a predominance of men in the first (83.8%) and the last (86.8%) positions (P < .001). Over the decades, there was a tendency for an increase in the proportion of women as the last author (P = .002; Chi-square trend Test), with an increase of women from 6% to 22% across the last 4 decades. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the genders for the first author in the last 4 decades (P = .163; Chi-square trend Test). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that men lead a large percentage of the most-cited articles in dentistry and that this trend has not shown substantial modifications over the last years. Nonetheless, for the position of last authorship, an increase in women's representativity was observed over the last decades.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Merriman, Rebekah
    ;
    Galizia, Ilaria
    ;
    Tanaka, Sonja
    ;
    Sheffel, Ashley
    ;
    Buse, Kent
    INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in the author bylines of articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Matchanova, Anastasia
    ;
    Avci, Gunes
    ;
    Babicz, Michelle A.
    ;
    Thompson, Jennifer L.
    ;
    Johnson, Briana
    Objective: Women are becoming more prevalent in clinical neuropsychology, but gender bias and disparities persist across multiple professional domains. This study examined potential gender disparities in historical authorship trends across commonly read journals in clinical neuropsychology. Method: Analyses were conducted on 10,531 articles published in six clinical neuropsychology journals from 1985 to 2019. Each author was coded as either a man or a woman using the OpenGenderTracking Project database. Results: On average, women comprised 43.3% (±30.6) of the authors listed in clinical neuropsychology article bylines and were lead and/or corresponding author on 50.3% of these papers. Findings varied by journal, with Child Neuropsychology having the best representation of women across several study metrics. Women comprised an increasing proportion of authors over time and the gender gap in clinical neuropsychology is smaller than was recently reported for the broader field of psychology; nevertheless, the recent rates of women as authors lag behind the prevalence of women in clinical neuropsychology. Encouragingly, gender was not associated with the number of times an article was cited. Articles that included women in leadership roles had significantly more authors overall and specifically more women authors. Conclusions: Women are under-represented as authors in clinical neuropsychology journals, but they are becoming more common and their papers are cited just as frequently as men. Efforts to increase women as research mentors and sponsors may help to further close the publishing gender gap in clinical neuropsychology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    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.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Lydon, Sinéad
    ;
    Madden, Caoimhe
    ;
    De Bhulbh, Áine
    ;
    Maher, Senan
    ;
    Byrne, Dara
    SUMMARY STATEMENT: Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Authorship of Gastroenterology Randomized Controlled Trial Literature Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Liu, Crystal S.
    ;
    Cromarty, Taylor J.
    ;
    Lin, Zhao X.
    ;
    Goodman, Karen J.
    ;
    Kroeker, Karen I.
    INTRODUCTION: We describe female authorship trends in gastroenterology (GI) randomized controlled trial literature as a novel focus on gender bias in academic GI. METHODS: Using a systematic PubMed search, we extracted GI randomized controlled trial reports published from 2011 to 2022. We describe time trends in proportions of females among first and last authors overall and within GI subspecialties and high-impact journals. RESULTS: The proportion of females increased from 25.4% to 36.8% and from 14.3% to 24.8% among first and last authors, respectively. Smaller increases in female authorship occurred in most subgroups, although there were proportionately fewer females among authors in high-impact journals and advanced therapeutic endoscopy publications. DISCUSSION: Over the past decade, female authorship in GI RCT reports has increased. However, female representation, particularly among senior authors and in high-impact journals, remains significantly lower. Despite recent improvements, female still constitutes a minority of the authors of original GI RCTs.
  • 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.