PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 18

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.
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.
Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19 Open PDF
(2022)
Madsen, Emil Bargmann
;
Nielsen, Mathias Wullum
;
Bjørnholm, Josefine
;
Jagsi, Reshma
;
Andersen, Jens Peter
Publications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.
Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open PDF
(2021)
Li, Ben
;
Jacob-Brassard, Jean
;
Dossa, Fahima
;
Salata, Konrad
;
Kishibe, Teruko
OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.
Gender differences in gastroenterology and hepatology authorship and editorial boards Open PDF
(2021)
Leung, Kristel K.
;
Jawaid, Noor
;
Bollegala, Natasha
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women are numerically under-represented in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. This study aims to characterize the gender distribution of first and senior authors and editorial board members across high impact factor journals in gastroenterology and hepatology. METHODS: Publications from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were reviewed from 29 journals. Gender of editorial board leadership, editorial board members, first, and senior authors was identified using publicly available data. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess for a relationship among editorial board, first author, and senior author gender and impact factor. RESULTS: Of 29 journals (median impact factor 5.55) with 357 journal issues and 8036 articles, there were 3 of 39 female chief editors (7.7%), 601 of 3455 female editorial board members (17.4%), 2547 of 8036 female first authors (31.7%), and 1390 of 7335 female senior authors (19%). No statistically significant correlations existed between impact factor and chief editor gender with gender distribution of editorial boards, first authors, or senior authors. Positive correlations existed between male-dominated editorial boards and male first (+.52, P = .005) and senior authorship (+.56, P = .002), whereas negative correlations occurred between male-dominated editorial boards and female first (-.51, P = .006) and senior authorship (-.56, P = .002). Positive correlations also existed between publication of first and senior authors of the same gender (+.57, men [P = .001]; +.58, women [P = .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Although gender distribution of female first authorship approaches current distributions in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, editor-in-chief positions, editorial board membership, and senior authorship continue to be primarily men. Future endeavors to improve proportionate gender representation include improved journal leadership selection transparency, targeted diversity statements, and enhanced mentorship.
Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science Open PDF
(2013)
Larivière, Vincent
;
Ni, Chaoqun
;
Gingras, Yves
;
Cronin, Blaise
;
Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
Cassidy R. Sugimoto and colleagues present a bibliometric analysis confirming that gender imbalances persist in research output worldwide.
Gender Differences in Physical Activity and Health-Related Authorships Between 1950 and 2019 Open PDF
(2024)
Kohn, Eduardo Ribes
;
Hallal, Pedro Curi
;
Niño-Cruz, Gloria Isabel
;
Almentero, Julia
;
Pinzón, Diana
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate gender differences in authorship in physical activity and health research. METHODS: A bibliometric study including 23,399 articles from 105 countries was conducted to estimate the participation of female researchers in physical activity publications from 1950 to 2019. The frequency of female researchers was analyzed and classified by first and last authors and the overall percentage of female authors by region and country. RESULTS: The proportion of female first authors increased from <10% in the 50s and 80s to 55% in the last decade. On the other hand, the proportion of last authors increased from 8.7% to 41.1% in the same period. Most publications with female researchers were from the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, England, Germany, Sweden, and China. Nine of these countries had over 50% of the articles published by female first authors. However, in all 10 countries, <50% of the articles were published by female last authors. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of female researchers increased over time. However, regional differences exist and should be addressed in gender equity policies. There is a gap in the participation of female researchers as last authors. By actively addressing the gender gap in research, the global society can harness the full potential of all talented individuals, regardless of gender, leading to more inclusive and impactful scientific advancements.
Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women Open PDF
(2024)
James, Alex
;
Buelow, Franca
;
Gibson, Liam
;
Brower, Ann
We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.
The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? Open PDF
(2018)
Holman, Luke
;
Stuart-Fox, Devi
;
Hauser, Cindy E.
Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.
Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research Open PDF
(2018)
Xiao, Nicholas
;
Mansukhani, Neel A.
;
Mendes de Oliveira, Diego F.
;
Kibbe, Melina R.
Importance: Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives: To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results: Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results