PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Participation of women in doctorate, research, innovation, and management activities at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid: analysis of the decade 2006–2016 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Hernández-Martín, E.
    ;
    Calle, F.
    ;
    Dueñas, J.C.
    ;
    Holgado, M.
    ;
    Gómez-Pérez, A.
    This article studies the participation of women in doctorate, lecturing and research, innovation, and management activities at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), the most important and largest university in Spain devoted to engineering and architecture. The analyses revealed significant differences in the ratio of male (76%) and female (24%) lecturing and research staff. This unequal ratio conducted to women underrepresentation in other actions such as coordination of international projects, decision-making designations, patenting and software licensing, collaboration with companies, and PhD supervision. PhD enrolment and PhD defence data, disaggregated by gender and by technological area, were also analysed as they are the starting point of the academic career, and showed a widespread male prevalence over women (ca. 70% men vs. 30% women). The aim of this paper is to present actual, accurate, objective, and gender-segregated information extracted from UPM databases, to carry out a qualitative study drawing on an opinion survey and a “gap” analysis, and to undertake a critical examination of the historic, political, sociocultural and personal factors affecting gender inequalities in academia. Policy recommendations to improve the situation of women and to achieve gender balance in the disciplines of engineering and architecture are also provided. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Roper, Rachel L.
    The percentage of women employed in professional scientific positions has been low but is increasing over time. The U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have both implemented programs to improve women's participation in science, and many universities and companies have diversity and equity programs. While most faculty and scientists believe that they are fair and unbiased, numerous well-designed studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals show that gender bias in sciences and medicine is widespread and persistent today in both faculty and students. Recent studies show that gender bias affects student grading, professional hiring, mentoring, tenure, promotion, respect, grant proposal success, and pay. In addition, sexual harassment remains a significant barrier. Fortunately, several studies provide evidence that programs that raise conscious awareness of gender bias can improve equity in science, and there are a number of recommendations and strategies for improving the participation of women.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time? Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Cassia-Silva, C
    ;
    Rocha, BS
    ;
    Lievano-Latorre, LF
    ;
    Sobreiro, MB
    ;
    Diele-Viegas, LM
    Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Neurosurgery: Gender Differences in Authorship in High-Impact Neurosurgery Journals through the Last Two Decades Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Aslan, Ayfer
    ;
    Kuzucu, Pelin
    ;
    Karaaslan, Burak
    ;
    Börcek, Alp Özgün
    OBJECTIVE: Despite common gender disparities in authorship across the vast majority of specialties, the presence of a similar lack of equality in neurosurgery literature is not published yet. Therefore the authors examined the changes in representation of women among the first and senior (last) authors of original articles in high-impact neurosurgical journals between 2003 and 2018. METHODS: Data regarding women proportions among the first and senior authors were collected from the issues of Neurosurgery and Journal of Neurosurgery published in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. RESULTS: According to the analysis of 3247 original articles, compared with male authors, female authors have published fewer articles as the first (518 of women, 2729 of men) and senior authors (352 of women, 2884 of men). Nonetheless, the proportion of women in the first authorship represented a significant increase from 2003 to 2018 (from 12% to 16.5%, respectively; P < 0.01), but not in senior authorship (11.7% in 2003 vs. 10.5% in 2018; P > 0.05). Overall, women wrote more research articles than case reports as both first and senior authors (451 and 301 vs. 67 and 51, respectively). In addition, women demonstrated a higher percentage of first authors on female senior author articles (30.4%) than male senior author articles (14.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Although a rising trend in female authorship of neurosurgical literature has been going on through the last 2 decades, this advancement could not be regarded as satisfactory, as the gender gap in authorship is still excessive. Strikingly, female first authors had a tendency of coauthoring with female senior authors.