Gender differences in research reporting

Jagsi, Reshma; Silver, Julie K.

doi:10.1136/bmj.l6692

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past decades, there has been a rapid change in the gender ratio of medical doctors, whereas gender differences in academia remain apparent. 1 - 6 Fifty years ago, only 9% of the medical students in the USA were female. Nowadays, the number of female students exceeds the number of male students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research

Benjamens

Berg

Pol

2020

Transplantation Direct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Over the past decades, there has been a rapid change in the gender ratio of medical doctors, whereas gender differences in academia remain apparent. In transplantation research, a field already understaffed with female doctors and researchers, there is little published data on the development in proportion, citations, and funding of female researchers over the past years. Methods. To evaluate the academic impact of female doctors in transplantation research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis (01 January 1999 to 31 December 2018) of high-impact scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in this field. Web of Science data was used in combination with software R-Package “Gender,” to predict gender by first names. Results. For this study, 15 498 (36.2% female; 63.8% male) first and 13 345 (30.2% female; 69.8% male) last author gender matches were identified. An increase in the percentage of female first and last authors is seen in the period 1999–2018, with clear differences between countries (55.1% female authors in The Netherlands versus 13.1% in Japan, for example). When stratifying publications based on the number of citations, a decline was seen in the percentage of female authors, from 34.6%–30.7% in the first group (≤10 citations) to 20.8%–23.2% in the fifth group (>200 citations), for first (P < 0.001) and last (P = 0.014) authors, respectively. From all first author name-gender matches, 6574 (41.6% female; 58.4% male, P < 0.001) publications reported external funding, with 823 (35.5% female; 64.5% male, P = 0.701) reported funding by pharmaceutical companies and 1266 (36.6% female; 63.4% male, P < 0.001) reporting funding by the National Institutes of Health. Conclusions. This is the first analysis of gender bias in scientific publications, subsequent citations, and funding in transplantation research. We show ongoing differences between male and female authors in citation rates and rewarded funding in this field. This requires an active approach to increase female representation in research reporting and funding rewarding.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research

Benjamens

Berg

Pol

2020

Transplantation Direct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Women do not promote their work as much as men. Men tend to self-cite significantly more (King et al, 2017), use language that is more positive about their result (Jagsi & Silver, 2019), and have their work described more strongly in recommendation letters (Dutt et al, 2016). These factors affect how much others are aware of women's work: if fellow scientists have not heard of them, they will not get cited.…”

Section: Issues With Claiming Causal Effects Of Gender On Impact Using Observational Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Funding. Women scientists might have more difficulties attracting and obtaining funding (Jagsi & Silver, 2019;Kaatz et al, 2016), diminishing their ability to produce impact for their field. Additionally, because perceived ranks of institutions are subjectively affected by funding and the broad dissemination of the institution's publications and work (Harvey, 2008), controlling for ranking also correlates funding and dissemination factors.…”

Section: Factor 2 Training Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some considerations for studying gender, mentorship, and scientific impact: commentary on AlShebli, Makovi, and Rahwan (2020)

Acuña¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students, mentors, educational institutions, and funders want to make the best decision possible to maximize mentees’ success. Previous work has revealed the critical long-term impact of mentor-mentee relationships, opening the door for policy-relevant recommendations that could improve mentor-mentee matching. The article authored by AlShebli, Makovi, and Rahwan (2020)—the AMR article from now on—focuses on the little-known effects of gender dynamics on these relationships. The most controversial recommendation in AMR is that women mentees would do better with men mentors than women mentors. At best, we think this claim relies on weak evidence; at worst, this claim could be misleading and problematic. In this commentary, we describe several issues regarding definitions, methodology, and data quality in AMR. We offer alternative hypotheses rooted in past research regarding women’s lack of access to dissemination, training, and funding. If anything, these factors could significantly reduce or reverse the findings reported by AMR. We offer suggestions for controlling these effects and a research path forward for studying this important subject.

show abstract

“…A recent study has highlighted that the reviewers of grants and publications look for broad and positive words such as "novel," "therapy," and "unique," which are commonly used by male researchers. 6 While women are less likely to emphasize their research with emphatic words, this could be another reason for lower publication and grant acceptance. Women also have more social responsibilities than men and are expected to take these responsibilities more seriously.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%