PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 11

What's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap Open PDF
(2018)
Nygaard, L.P.
;
Bahgat, K.
A persistent finding in studies of research productivity is the ‘gender gap’ where men seem to publish more academic research than women. However, this gap varies widely from study to study, and little has been done to explore how these claims might be sensitive to what is being measured and how. Using a dataset of publications statistics spanning five years for a Norwegian social science research institute, this paper looks at how (and why) measuring productivity in different ways provides different pictures of the gender gap. Based on the situated context of the institute, we also disaggregate the data by staff category, methodological orientation, and language background, and consider the impact of leaves of absence. We find widely varying measures of the gender gap depending on how we measure and disaggregate, and argue that different bibliometric indicators capture different aspects of research performance, including diversity of output and collaboration, which reflect different publication practices that are both gendered and situated. We suggest that looking at academic writing as a situated - and gendered - social practice offers a potential for deriving more theoretically consistent explanations for both the seeming persistence of the gender gap and the wide contextual variations. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
Identifying gender disparities in research performance: the importance of comparing apples with apples Open PDF
(2022)
Nygaard, L.P.
;
Aksnes, D.W.
;
Piro, F.N.
Many studies on research productivity and performance suggest that men consistently outperform women. However, women and men are spread unevenly throughout the academy both horizontally (e.g., by scientific field) and vertically (e.g., by academic position), suggesting that aggregate numbers (comparing all men with all women) may reflect the different publication practices in different corners of the academy rather than gender per se. We use Norwegian bibliometric data to examine how the “what” (which publication practices are measured) and the “who” (how the population sample is disaggregated) matter in assessing apparent gender differences among academics in Norway. We investigate four clusters of indicators related to publication volume, publication type, authorship, and impact or quality (12 indicators in total) and explore how disaggregating the population by scientific field, institutional affiliation, academic position, and age changes the gender gaps that appear at the aggregate level. For most (but not all) indicators, we find that gender differences disappear or are strongly reduced after disaggregation. This suggests a composition effect, whereby apparent gender differences in productivity can to a considerable degree be ascribed to the composition of the group examined and the different publication practices common to specific groups. We argue that aggregate figures can exaggerate some gender disparities while obscuring others. Our study illustrates the situated nature of research productivity and the importance of comparing men and women within similar academic positions or scientific fields—of comparing apples with apples—when using bibliometric indicators to identify gender disparities in research productivity. © 2022, The Author(s).
First-author gender differentials in business journal publishing: top journals versus the rest Open PDF
(2022)
Joanis, S.T.
;
Patil, V.H.
Prior literature suggests that the publication rates of female academics are less than the publication rates of male academics. This holds true in nearly every academic field and in every region, but these differences are declining over time. Women also are underrepresented in the first-author byline position. This study examines academics working and publishing in different business disciplines, and it addresses three distinct topics. It investigates (1) whether there is a relationship between the gender of first-listed authors of articles published and the ranking of journals; (2) it considers the relationship between the gender of the first-listed author of articles and different disciplines within business, specifically accounting, business technology, marketing, and organizational behavior; and (3) it evaluates how the publication rates of the two genders of first authors change over a 20-year period (1999–2018) for different disciplines. This research demonstrates that the gender gap is closing for female first authors in business academics, but that parity has not yet been reached. Women continue to be published less frequently in first-author positions in journals across all business disciplines studied, but especially in the higher-ranked journals, albeit with significant differences between business academic disciplines. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
How human capital, universities of excellence, third party funding, mobility and gender explain productivity in German political science Open PDF
(2021)
Habicht, I.M.
;
Lutter, M.
;
Schröder, M.
Using a unique panel dataset of virtually all German academic political scientists, we show that researchers become much more productive due to the accumulation of human capital and third party funding. We also show however, that while universities of excellence have more productive researchers, individuals who go there do not become more productive. Finally, we show how women publish only 9 percent less than men with the same level of prior publication experience, but are about 26 percent less productive over their entire career, as early productivity leads to later productivity, so that women increasingly fall behind. These results cannot be explained through the influence of childbearing. Rather, they support the ‘theory of limited differences’, which argues that small differences in early productivity accumulate to large differences over entire careers, as early success encourages later success. Apart from generally showing why political scientists publish more or less, we specifically identify accumulative advantage as the principal reason why women increasingly fall behind men over the course of their careers. © 2021, The Author(s).
Gender Differences in Faculty Rank and Leadership Positions Among Physician Biochemistry Faculty in North America: A Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Study
(2021)
Tiwana, Muhammad Haaris
;
Sverdlichenko, Irina
;
Xuan, Lisa
;
Jalal, Sabeena
;
Tiwana, Sabeen
Purpose This study sought to assess gender differences among physician faculty in medical biochemistry and genetics programs in North America. It compared the distribution of academic and leadership ranks, years of active research, number of citations and publications, and Hirsch-index (h-index) by gender. Variable associations with the h-index were assessed. Method This was a cross-sectional retrospective study for which data was collected from June 2019 to October 2019 on academic and administrative physician faculty members for medical biochemistry and genetics programs. The website of Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, Canadian Resident Matching Service website, and the medical biochemistry profile from the Canadian Medical Association to identify relevant programs and SCOPUS was used to gather faculty data. Results The analyses included 147 faculty members. More male faculty held higher academic rank positions and first-in-command leadership positions than female faculty. Men had more median years of active research, citation numbers, publication numbers, and h-index than women across all academic ranks. Upon performing multivariable linear regression, female faculty showed 0.39 times the odds of having a higher h-index than male faculty, keeping all other variables constant (p<0.01). Conclusions In our study, it was shown that male physician faculty surveyed had higher performance than female faculty in academic rank and research productivity. Certain barriers may be contributing factors, including lack of mentorship or flexible institutional policies, women choosing clinical educator tracks, or gender bias. Considering the low retention rates of women in academic research, there is a need to address barriers in order to achieve gender parity.
Gender disparity in research productivity across departments in the faculty of medicine: a bibliometric analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Rachid, E.
;
Noureddine, T.
;
Tamim, H.
;
Makki, M.
;
Naalbandian, S.
Women’s contributions to the medical field have increased substantially over the past 4 decades but women remain underrepresented. Since research productivity is an important criterion for promotion, it was essential to assess the gender differences within the faculty of medicine and across departments. We conducted a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database between 2009 and 2018 at the American University of Beirut (N = 324, 93 women, 231 men). Women comprised 29% of the faculty. The rank of Professor was held by 34% of men and 18% of women (p < 0.0001). Mean number of publications was 30.12 for males compared to 20.77 for females (p = 0.007). Men were more often last authors (p < 0.0001) and corresponding authors (p < 0.01). In the MD subcategory (N = 282), the gender difference in number of publications, H-index, and total citations was not significant. Women MDs were underrepresented as last authors (p < 0.0001). Among PhD faculty (N = 42), males had greater H-Indices (p = 0.02) and were more often last and corresponding authors. After adjusting for the year of appointment: the gender differences in corresponding and last authorship lost statistical significance among MDs but not among PhDs where it became more pronounced. In conclusion, women in the faculty of medicine were underrepresented in most departments, senior ranks and senior research authorships; H-indices generally did not differ, which was partially explained by the later year of appointment among females. In a developing country, greater family responsibilities especially early in their careers, may put women at a disadvantage in research productivity. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
Academic musculoskeletal radiology: influences for gender disparity Open PDF
(2018)
Qamar, S.R.
;
Khurshid, K.
;
Jalal, S.
;
Bancroft, L.
;
Munk, P.L.
Introduction: Research productivity is one of the few quintessential gauges that North American academic radiology departments implement to determine career progression. The rationale of this study is to quantify the relationship of gender, research productivity, and academic advancements in the musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology to account for emerging trends in workforce diversity. Methods: Radiology residency programs enlisted in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA), Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) and International Skeletal Society (ISS) were searched for academic faculty to generate the database for gender and academic profiles of MSK radiologists. Bibliometric data was collected using Elsevier’s SCOPUS archives, and analyzed using Stata version 14.2. Results: Among 274 MSK radiologists in North America, 190 (69.34%) were men and 84 (30.66%) were women, indicating a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 6.34; p value = 0.042). The available number of female assistant professors (n = 50) was more than half of the male assistant professors (n = 88), this ratio however, plummeted at higher academic ranks, with only one-fourth of women (n = 11) professors compared to men (n = 45). The male MSK radiologist had 1.31 times the odds of having a higher h-index, keeping all other variables constant. Conclusions: The trend of gender disparity exists in MSK radiology with significant underrepresentation of women in top tiers of academic hierarchy. Even with comparable h-indices, at the lower academic ranks, a lesser number of women are promoted relative to their male colleagues. Further studies are needed to investigate the degree of influence research productivity has, in determining academic advancement of MSK radiologists. © 2017, ISS.
Gender disparities are present in academic rank and leadership positions despite overall equivalence in research productivity indices among senior members of American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) Fellowship Faculty Open PDF
(2019)
Garstka, M.E.
;
Randolph, G.W.
;
Haddad, A.B.
;
Nathan, C.-A.O.
;
Ibraheem, K.
Background: This study aims to examine potential disparities in scholarly performance based on sex, academic rank, leadership positions, and regional distribution of faculty in accredited Head and Neck Surgery fellowships in the United States. Methods: Online faculty listings for 37 accredited fellowships were organized according to academic rank, leadership position, sex, and institutional location. Academic productivity was measured with three bibliometric indices: h-index, m-index, and the weighted relative citation ratio. Results: A total of 732 faculty members were included, of which 153 (21%) were female. Fifty-eight males (89.2%) held leadership positions, compared to seven females (10.8%). There was no significant difference in overall productivity between male and female senior faculty. There were regional differences in productivity by sex. Conclusions: Females are underrepresented in senior faculty and within three common leadership positions, although scholarly productivity for male and female senior faculty and for those in leadership positions is similar. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership and Research Productivity Among Canadian Anesthesiology Faculty
(2020)
Esslinger, Eric N.
;
Van der Westhuizen, Michael
;
Jalal, Sabeena
;
Masud, Sarmad
;
Khosa, Faisal
Purpose Despite increasing numbers of women entering anesthesiology training, women remain underrepresented in senior academic positions and leadership roles. This study aims to determine the extent of gender disparity in Canadian departments of anesthesiology. In addition, we explore the correlation between publication productivity and academic rank in this cohort. Methods The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) was queried to identify 17 training programs for anesthesiology. Department websites were searched to determine the names of faculty members, as well as gender, leadership roles, and academic ranks. The SCOPUS© database was used to generate the number of publications, number of citations, publication range, and h-index of each faculty member. Results In our study cohort of 1404 academic anesthesiologists, 30.1% were women. Women held a minority of 130 leadership positions (27%, n = 35). With increasing academic rank female representation decreased (p = 0.009), such that 21% of full professors were women. Overall, male anesthesiologists had a higher h-index, number of publications, and number of citations (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, and p = <0.001, respectively) than women. Conclusion Despite growing numbers of women entering the academic workforce, women are underrepresented in senior academic ranks and leadership positions. In addition, men and women have significant differences in measures of publication productivity. This study underscores the importance of directed efforts to promote equity in career outcomes.
Gender Differences in Research Productivity among Academic Psychiatrists in Canada Open PDF
(2019)
Chauvin, S.
;
Mulsant, B.H.
;
Sockalingam, S.
;
Stergiopoulos, V.
;
Taylor, V.H.
Objectives: Gender inequity in academic medicine persists despite increases in the number of women physicians. We sought to explore gender differences in research productivity for academic psychiatrists in Canada. Methods: In a cross-sectional study of the 3379 psychiatrists in all 17 university departments of psychiatry in Canada, research productivity, as measured by the h-index and number of publications, was compared between women and men using a negative log binomial regression model to generate relative rates (RRs), adjusted for career duration (aRR). Findings were stratified by academic rank, institution region, and institution size. A subanalysis of those with 10 or more publications was conducted as a proxy for identifying physicians on a research track. Results: Women (43% of the sample) had a lower mean (standard deviation) h-index than men (2.87 [6.49] vs. 5.31 [11.1]; aRR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.72). Differences were significant only for junior faculty and not for associate and full professors. Comparison by number of publications followed a similar pattern (aRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55). Among those with 10 or more publications (n = 721), differences between men and women were smaller than in the overall cohort for both the h-index (aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) and number of publications (aRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72). Conclusions: Gender differences in research productivity at the national level in academic psychiatry in Canada support a call to adopt a more systematic approach to promoting equitable opportunities for women in research, especially in early career, to improve diversity and enhance future psychiatric research and discovery. © The Author(s) 2019.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results