PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.PublicationViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Enhancing equity within the promotions dossier evaluation—Strategies to mitigate biases Open PDF 
    (Frontiers Media SA, 2026-01-09)
    Joy, Tisha R.
    Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in career advancement in academic medicine continue to exist despite ongoing calls to diversify the physician workforce and leadership representation. Compared with white men, women and racially and ethnically underrepresented physicians are more likely to enter academic medicine, but less likely to achieve promotion. Cited barriers to academic advancement include ambiguous or inconsistent criteria for consideration for promotion and lack of standard processes for reviewing applications. The promotions committee therefore is an important rate-limiting step subject to biases that impact not just tenure, but also leadership opportunities and physician salaries. This perspective article explores areas where biases influence promotion criteria evaluation, including but not limited to accomplishments within teaching, research, and/or service, external recognition, candidate statements, and reference letters. The article then will propose strategies helpful to promotion committee members to help mitigate these biases and provide more equitable promotion evaluation.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Representation in Authorship of Academic Dermatology Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Szeto, Mindy D.
    ;
    Laughter, Melissa R.
    ;
    Maymone, Mayra B. C.
    ;
    Patel, Payal M.
    ;
    Sivesind, Torunn E.
    Analyses of women dermatology literature authorship from 2018 to 2022 reveal a slight increase in total female authors, female first authors, and female senior authors with no substantial immediate impact of COVID-19 on current trends, encouraging future examination of long-term effects and ongoing promotion of systemic initiatives to support gender equity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Article placement order in rheumatology journals: a content analysis Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Rheumatology, 2020)
    Stewart, Sarah
    ;
    Gamble, Greg
    ;
    Grey, Andrew
    ;
    Dalbeth, Nicola
    Objectives To analyse variables associated with article placement order in serial rheumatology journals. Design Content analysis. Setting Original articles published in seven rheumatology journals from 2013 to 2018. Primary and secondary outcome measures The following data were extracted from 6787 articles: order number of article in issue, gender of first and last author, geographical region, industry funding, research design and disease category. Cumulative density function plots were used to determine whether article placement distribution was different from the expected distribution. ORs for articles published in the first three places of an issue compared with the last three places were calculated. Altmetric Score and downloads were meta-analysed. Results Article placement order did not associate with author gender or geographical region but was associated with funding source and research design. In addition, articles about rheumatoid arthritis were more likely to be ordered at the front of issues (p<0.001). Articles about crystal arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, pain syndromes and paediatric rheumatic diseases were more likely to be ordered at the end of issues (all p<0.001). Association of article placement order with disease category was observed only in journals with tables of contents grouped by disease. Articles ordered in the first three places had higher Altmetric and download rates, than articles in the last three places. Conclusions Author gender and geographical region do not influence article placement order in serial rheumatology journals. However, bias for certain disease categories is reflected in article placement order. Editorial decisions about article placement order can influence the prominence of diseases.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in shoulder and elbow publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sequeira, S.B.
    ;
    Wright, M.A.
    ;
    Murthi, A.M.
    Hypothesis/Background: Female representation in orthopedics, and specifically shoulder and elbow surgery, lags behind other surgical subspecialities. There has been a growing interest in recent years to better characterize, and address, gender disparities in the field. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize gender trends in authorship in the shoulder and elbow literature from 2002 to 2020. Methods: Articles published from January 2002 to December 2020 in 15 clinical orthopedic and shoulder- and elbow-specific journals were extracted from the online PubMed database. Articles that included the first name of the first and senior authors and contained keywords related to the shoulder and elbow subspecialty were included. The Genderize algorithm was used to determine each author's gender. Gender-based publication trends from 2002 to 2020 were analyzed using descriptive and significance testing as well as logistic regression. Results: 34,695 articles met inclusion criteria and 52,497 unique authors were identified. Of these unique authors, 10,175 (19.4%) were female and 42,322 (80.6%) were male. On average, each unique female author published 1.7 ± 0.1 manuscripts since 2002 and each male author published 2.5 ± 0.2 (P < .001). Female representation in shoulder and elbow publications began at 10.2% in 2002 and rose to 15.9% in 2020 (P < .001). Female representation in the lead author position began at 4.1% in 2002 and rose to 5.8% in 2020 (P = .009). Female representation in the senior author position began at 6.0% in 2002 and rose to 9.1% in 2020 (P < .001). Conclusion: Although female representation in first, senior, and general authorship lags behind male representation in the shoulder and elbow literature, female authorship has significantly increased since 2002. The same men tend to publish more frequently while the number of unique female authors surpasses the annual representation of female authorship. Efforts to improve female representation in the field of orthopedic surgery should include efforts directed at improving female representation in academic literature. © 2022 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees
  • Item type:Publication,
    Comparison of the contributions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: a cross-sectional study Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Sociology, 2019)
    Gayet-Ageron, Angele
    ;
    Poncet, Antoine
    ;
    Perneger, Thomas
    Objectives The proportion of women engaged in clinical research has increased over time. However, it is unclear if women and men contribute to the same extent during the conduct of research and, if so, if they are equally rewarded by a strategic first or last author position. We aim to describe the prevalence of women authors of original articles published 15 years apart and to compare the research contributions and author positions according to gender. Design Repeated cross-sectional study. Setting Published original articles. Participants 1910 authors of 223 original articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 and 2015. Primary and secondary outcomes measures Self-reported contributions to 10 aspects of the article (primary) and author position on the byline. Results The proportion of women authors increased from 32% (n=243) to 41% (n=469) between 2000 and 2015 (p<0.0001). In 2000, women authors were less frequently involved than men in the conception and design (134 (55%) vs 323 (61%); p=0.0256), critical revision (171 (70%) vs 426 (81%); p=0.0009), final approval (196 (81%) vs 453 (86%); p=0.0381) and obtaining of funding (39 (16%) vs 114 (22%); p=0.0245). Women were more frequently involved than men in administration and logistics (85 (35%) vs 137 (26%); p=0.0188) and data collection (121 (50%) vs 242 (46%); p=0.0532), but they were similarly involved in the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, provision of materials/patients and statistical expertise. Women were less often last authors than men (22 (9%) vs 82 (16%); p=0.0102). These gender differences persisted in 2015. Conclusions The representation of women among authors of medical articles increased notably between 2000 and 2015, but still remained below 50%. Women’s roles differed from those of men with no change over time.