Gender distribution in awarded Canadian Institutes of Health Research grants among anesthesiologists: a retrospective analysis between 2008 and 2020

Toor, Amolpreet S; Wooding, Denise J.; Masud, Sarmad; Khosa, Faisal

doi:10.1007/s12630-021-02043-w

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies' results in different branches emphasised that the inequality between men and women continues. 1,[5][6][7][8][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Many reasons underlying gender inequality are considered in these studies. Among these reasons are the perception of gender bias in academic organisational structures, women receiving lower salaries than men, lack of female mentors and inadequate mentoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies investigating gender differences in many medical branches, the number of women working in related branches, the number of female department heads, the number of women on administrative boards and the number of women who received awards are presented. These studies' results in different branches emphasised that the inequality between men and women continues 1,5–8,10–19 . Many reasons underlying gender inequality are considered in these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The gender composition of the members of the editorial board of toxicology journals: Assessment of gender equality

Hancı,

Yakar,

Shermatov

et al. 2023

Basic Clin Pharma Tox

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many areas of medicine, gender equality has not yet been fully adopted despite recent developments. The inequality of gender in various areas of medicine is still debated. In this study, we analysed the gender composition of the editorial boards of toxicology journals in the Science Citation Index‐Expanded (SCI‐E) databases and the factors affecting this composition.The genders of the participants were determined by the data obtained from the official websites of the journals in September 2023. We analysed the journal metrics and publisher properties using Mann–Whitney U, Fisher's exact, Chi‐square tests and Spearman's correlation coefficient. We used logistic regression analysis to reveal the independent factors related to gender parity. The representation rates of women were 28.62% on all editorial boards and 23.33% in editor‐in‐chief positions. The ‘Neuroscience’ (OR, 2.46 95%CI, 1.68–3.60, p < 0.001), ‘Reproductive Biology’(OR, 2.05 95%CI, 1.22–3.42, p = 0.006) and ‘Public, Environmental & Occupational Health’(OR, 1.49 95%CI, 1.18–1.88, p = 0.001) as a coverage category, the United States as a journal country (OR, 1.21, 95%CI, 1.04–1.40, p = 0.001), 5‐year‐IF≥3.6(OR, 1.54, 95%CI, 1.27–1.86, p < 0.001), 5‐year H index≥29 (OR, 1.23, 95%CI, 1.01–1.49, p = 0.037) were the independent factors for gender parity. However, ‘Oncology’ (OR, 0.08 95%CI, 0.01–0.55, p = 0.011), ‘Biochemistry, Molecular Biology’ (OR, 0.62 95%CI, 0.44–0.86, p = 0.005) and ‘Pharmacology & Pharmacy’ (OR, 0.69 95%CI, 0.59–0.82, p < 0.001) as a coverage category, Japan as a publisher country (OR, 0.52 95%CI, 0.35–0.77, p = 0.001), and Switzerland as a journal country (OR, 0.61, 95%CI, 0.46–0.81, p = 0.001) were related to gender disparity. Greater endeavours are needed to reduce gender discrimination in toxicology. Toxicology authorities should continuously improve existing policies by optimising the analysis of objective information to eliminate barriers for toxicologists in terms of gender equality.

show abstract