PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

2015 - 2019142020 - 202430

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Publications

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 44
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Ouyang, David
    ;
    Sing, David
    ;
    Shah, Sonia
    ;
    Hu, Jiaqi
    ;
    Duvernoy, Claire
    BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is the gender gap closing in otolaryngology subspecialties? An analysis of research productivity Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Okafor, S.
    ;
    Tibbetts, K.
    ;
    Shah, G.
    ;
    Tillman, B.
    ;
    Agan, A.
    Objective: The proportion of women specializing in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (Oto–HNS) and seeking fellowship training has steadily increased over the last several years. In academic Oto–HNS, gender differences exist in research productivity, scholarly impact, and funding. This study aims to evaluate gender differences in academic productivity between otolaryngologists in early, mid-, and later careers stages and within various subspecialties. Methods: Departmental websites for all Oto–HNS residency programs were accessed, and data including gender, academic rank, and fellowship training/subspecialty field was collected. Bibliometric data including h-index, publication years, number of citations, documents, and coauthors was obtained from the Scopus database. Career groups were defined as early (1–5 years), mid- (6–15 years), and later (16+ years). Continuous data was compared using the t test. Results: Data was collected on 1,754 academic otolaryngologists (412 women, 1,342 men). Overall, men exhibited significantly higher h-indices, number of documents, citations, and coauthors and actively published for more years compared to women (P < 0.0001 for all variables). Similar trends persisted across all subspecialties. When authors were broken down into career groups, women and men showed similar research productivity across all career groups in the subspecialties of otology, facial plastics, and rhinology; however, in head and neck, laryngology, and pediatrics, women continued to lag behind men. Conclusion: This study suggests that female otolaryngologists within certain subspecialties are keeping pace with their male counterparts in publication productivity in the early career time frame. This represents a change from prior studies which have shown women to be less productive in the early career period. Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 130:1144–1150, 2020. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Academic Radiology Publication in the United States Revisited Open PDF 
    (2018)
    O'Connor, Erin E.
    ;
    Chen, Pauline
    ;
    Weston, Brian
    ;
    Anderson, Redmond
    ;
    Zeffiro, Timothy
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although substantial increases in publications by female academic radiologists have appeared over the last several decades, it is possible that the rate of increase is decreasing. We examined temporal trends in gender composition for full-time radiology faculty, radiology residents, and medical students over a 46-year period. METHODS: We examined authorship gender trends to determine if the increases in female authorship seen since 1970 have been sustained in recent years and whether female radiologists continue to publish in proportion to their numbers in academic departments. Original articles for selected years in Radiology and in the American Journal of Roentgenology between 1970 and 2016 were examined to determine the gender of first, corresponding, and last authors. Generalized linear models evaluated (1) changes in proportions of female authorship over time and (2) associations between proportions of female authorship and female radiology faculty representation. RESULTS: While linear increases in first, corresponding, and senior authorships were observed for female radiologists from 1970 to 2000, the rate of increase in female first and corresponding authorships then changed, with the slope of the first author relationship decreasing from 0.81 to 0.34, corresponding to 47% fewer female first authors added per year. In contrast, the proportion of female last authorship continued to increase at the same rate. The proportion of female first authorship was linearly related to the proportion of female radiology faculty from 1970 to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in first author academic productivity of female radiologists have lessened in the past 16 years, possibly related to reductions in the growth of female radiology faculty and trainees. As mixed, compared to homogeneous gender, authorship teams are associated with more citations, efforts to encourage more women to pursue careers in academic radiology could benefit the radiology research community.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Radiology Publication Productivity: An Examination of Academic Faculty From Four Health Systems in the United States Open PDF 
    (2017)
    McDonald, J.S.
    ;
    McDonald, R.J.
    ;
    Davenport, M.S.
    ;
    Jaffe, T.A.
    ;
    Cook, T.S.
    Objectives To compare male and female radiology faculty publication productivity metrics at four major academic centers. Materials and Methods All Radiology Department faculty members at four academic medical centers from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015, were included. Publication metrics including total number of manuscripts published; h- and m-indices; number of publications where faculty member was listed as first, last, or sole author; whether a woman was listed as one of the first five coauthors; and year of first publication were retrieved from Scopus. Publication metrics were compared between genders using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ2 tests. Results A total of 711 faculty members (519 male, 192 [27%] female members) were identified. Male faculty had a significantly higher number of total publications (median 54 versus 24, P &lt;.0001), publications per year (median 2.9 versus 1.6, P &lt;.0001), and h- (median 17 versus 10, P &lt;.0001) and m-indices (median 0.83 versus 0.60, P &lt;.0001) than female faculty. Male faculty had a significantly higher percentage of single author (median 1% versus 0%, P =.0014) and last author (median 16% versus 11%, P &lt;.0001) publications than female faculty. Female faculty had a significantly higher percentage of first author publications (21% versus 17%, P =.0025) and were significantly more likely to have another woman in their first five coauthor list (70% versus 45%, P &lt;.0001) than male faculty. Conclusions Large differences exist between female and male faculty in total publications; h- and m-indices; publications per year; number of first, single, last author papers; and percentage of faculty that have a female coauthor in their top five coauthor lists. © 2017 American College of Radiology
  • Item type:Publication,
    Contributions in Spanish Scientific Journals of Ancient History (1970-2020): Analysis of Authorship According to Sex/Gender
    (2022)
    Mateo Corredor, D.
    ;
    Pastor Quiles, M.
    This paper analyses the contributions published on Antiquity studies during the last half century in a selection of Spanish impact journals, taking into account the sex/gender of the authorship, its proportion and its development over time. In addition, the possible existence of differences is addressed depending on whether the contributions are of one authorship or co-authorship, as well as the position of signature in the works of more than one person. Likewise, the topic of these investigations is taken into account, with which it is intended to determine whether authorships of one sex/gender or another predominate in the different thematic areas. This study shows that the proportion of female authors is low and, furthermore, that a progressive increase in female authorship can not been observed in the last decades. © 2022 Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. All rights reserved.
  • 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,
    Gender Disparities in Authorship of Invited Submissions in High-Impact Psychology Journals Open PDF 
    (American Psychological Association, 2022)
    Mackelprang, J.L.
    ;
    Johansen, E.E.
    ;
    Orr, C.
    Women comprise the majority of graduates from psychology doctoral programs, but equity is yet to be achieved in the professoriate. Publication drives career advancement, underscoring the need to investigate publication-based metrics of eminence. To our knowledge, authorship of invited submissions—a proxy of research esteem—has not been the focus of any psychology studies. In this cross-sectional study, authorship of invited submission(s) in five elite psychology journals (2015–2019) was investigated: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Annual Review of Psychology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, and Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented. Author gender was classified using publicly available details (e.g., pronouns on professional websites). Primary outcomes were the proportion of women solo-, first-, or likely invited authors, relative to the proportion of women full and associate professors in psychology at R1 institutions (42.3%). Of 1,828 authorship positions (713 articles), 35.6% were occupied by women. Relative to the nominated base rate, women were disproportionately underrepresented. When the likely invited author on a multi-author publication was a woman, the first author was a woman on 51.0% of papers; when the likely invited author was a man, the first author was a woman on 34.1% of papers. These findings align with prior studies and extend the research by demonstrating that the gender publication gap in psychology is exacerbated in invited submissions and driven by particular subfields. Continued efforts are needed to redress gender disparities in authorship of invited submissions. © 2022 American Psychological Association
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Original Archivos de Bronconeumología Publications, 2001-2018 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    López-Padilla, D.
    ;
    García-Río, F.
    ;
    Alonso-Arroyo, A.
    ;
    Arenas Valls, N.
    ;
    Cerezo Lajas, A.
    Introduction: Gender inequality exists in scientific publications. The aim of this study was to determine changing patterns in gender differences and factors associated with the positioning of authors’ names in original articles published in Archivos de Bronconeumología (AB). Methods: We performed a bibliometric study of articles published in AB between 2001 and 2018. Author gender was analysed in four scenarios: first author, last author, middle authors, and mentee authors. Comparisons were made by authors’ specialties, funding received, multicentre studies, specialist areas, and others. Multivariate models adjusted for the percentage of registered physicians in the Spanish health system were created to predict the female gender of the first, middle, and last author. Results: A total of 828 publications were analysed in which women appeared as first authors in 286 (34.5%) and last authors in 169 (20.4%). A gradual increase in women as first authors was observed (P = .0001), but not as last authors (P = .570). Overall, the average number of female authors increased over time (from 1.6 ± 1.4 in 2001-2005 to 3.3 ± 2.3 in 2016-2018, P = .0001), with no differences in male averages. The adjusted multivariate models reflected a positive bi-directional relationship between the first author and the middle authors, and a negative association between the first author being Spanish and the last author being female (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.88, P = .012). Conclusions: Gender differences were found in various aspects of authorship in AB, summarized by a greater participation of women as first and intermediate authors, but not as last authors. © 2020 SEPAR
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in the publication rate among breast imaging radiologists in the United States and Canada Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Khurshid, K.
    ;
    Shah, S.
    ;
    Ahmadi, M.
    ;
    Jalal, S.
    ;
    Carlos, R.
    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether academic achievement differs by gender among breast imaging radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined the gender disparity in academic breast radiology using several parameters, including the h-index, the number of publications, and the number of citations. We also inspected gender disparity in academic ranks and leadership ranks. RESULTS. The research productivity of female breast imagers was found to be significantly lower than that of male colleagues across all academic ranks (p < 0.001). In addition, no correlation was noted between female gender and leadership positions (p = 0.57), despite the fact that women dominate the specialty of breast imaging. CONCLUSION. The number of publications by female radiologists has risen steadily over time; however, a significant gender disparity is seen in scholarly productivity. �© American Roentgen Ray Society.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Authorship in Psychiatry Journals From 2008 to 2018 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hart, Kamber L.
    ;
    Frangou, Sophia
    ;
    Perlis, Roy H.
    BACKGROUND: Women are currently underrepresented in academic psychiatry. As publication activity reflects both leadership and participation in academia, we examined temporal trends in women's authorship by conducting a large-scale bibliometric study of psychiatry journals. METHODS: We examined changes in proportions of women in the first, last, and overall authorship positions over time; relationship to journal impact factor and editorial board makeup; and rates of transition to senior author status using original research articles published in the 24 highest-impact psychiatry journals between January 2008 and May 2018. RESULTS: In 30,934 articles, women represented 40.0% of all authors in 2008 and 44.8% in 2018, with a significant increase in the percentage of women as first authors (2008: 43.5%, 2018: 49.5%; B = 0.64, p = .002) and last authors over time (2008: 30.0%, 2018: 35.7%; B = 0.64, p = 1 × 10-5). Articles with women as last authors were significantly more likely than those with men as last authors to have a woman as first author (χ21 = 126.1, p < 2.2 × 10-16). Women exhibited slower rates of transition to the last author position (log rank p = 2 × 10-16); time to 10% transition was 5 years for men and 9 years for women. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate continued improvement in the representation of women authors in psychiatry journals, resulting in near parity in first authors. However, slower rates of transition to the senior author position and continued underrepresentation of women as senior authors suggest ongoing challenges in achieving gender parity in academic leadership. At the present rate of change for last authors (0.64% increase per year), women would achieve parity in senior authorship in ∼20 to 25 years.