Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 52
Filter
1.
Dental press j. orthod. (Impr.) ; 26(2): e21spe2, 2021. tab, graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1862369

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Introduction: This paper reviews the history of women scientists in the 'Western world', whilst highlighting the persistent socio-structural issues that have led to the hiding and masking of the participation of women in Science. Further, a reflection is made of the situation of Dentistry, specifically in the field of Orthodontics in Brazil. The difference between genders is discussed, with the intention to map the progress of women in management and leadership positions, in both the academic and professional fields. Description: In Brazil, within Dentistry and Orthodontics, despite being in a numerical majority, women are still underrepresented in the area of professional leadership. This is true for Research Groups and Research Productivity; an example being the relatively low authorship of publications in a Brazilian journal of Orthodontics. They are also underrepresented as lead presenters at professional meetings, whilst there are also few female Presidents of professional organizations and associations. Conclusion: Despite being in a numerical majority, it is also important that women act in a more co-ordinated and consistent manner to achieve greater representation in these areas. The necessary changes in the structure in order to achieve this are not only of women and for women, but they must also involve the whole of society so that leadership, rights and duties are equally distributed between the genders.


RESUMO Objetivo: Este estudo objetivou resgatar a história de mulheres cientistas nos principais períodos históricos do mundo ocidental, para realçar a questão socioestrutural persistente que "invisibiliza" e mascara a participação das mulheres na Ciência. A partir disso, realizou-se uma reflexão sobre a situação da Odontologia, especificamente na área de Ortodontia no Brasil, no que tange à diferença de gêneros, com a finalidade de mapear a atuação das mulheres nos cargos de gestão e liderança nos âmbitos acadêmico e profissional. Descrição: No Brasil, na área de Odontologia e Ortodontia, apesar de serem maioria numérica, as mulheres ainda são minoria na liderança de Grupos de Pesquisa, Produtividade em Pesquisa, na autoria de artigos em um periódico nacional da área de Ortodontia, palestrantes de congressos e na presidência de Associações de Classe. Conclusão: Apesar de apresentar maioria numérica, é importante que as mulheres atuem de maneira mais consistente. As mudanças necessárias na estrutura não são apenas da mulher e para a mulher, mas devem envolver toda a sociedade para que direitos e deveres sejam distribuídos de forma igualitária entre os sexos.


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Orthodontics , Physicians, Women , Authorship , Brazil , Leadership
2.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264265, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1854998

ABSTRACT

The gender gap is a well-known problem in academia and, despite its gradual narrowing, recent estimations indicate that it will persist for decades. Short-term descriptive studies suggest that this gap may have actually worsened during the months of confinement following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on female and male academics' research productivity using preprint drop-off data. We examine a total of 307,902 unique research articles deposited in 5 major preprint repositories during the period between January and May each year from 2017 to 2020. We find that the proportion of female authors in online repositories steadily increased over time; however, the trend reversed during the confinement and gender parity worsened in two respects. First, the proportion of male authors in preprints increased significantly during lockdown. Second, the proportion of male authors in COVID-19-related articles was significantly higher than that of women. Overall, our results imply that the gender gap in academia suffered an approximately 1-year setback during the strict lockdown months of 2020, and COVID-related research areas suffered an additional 1.5-year setback.


Subject(s)
Authorship , COVID-19/epidemiology , Publications/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Research/statistics & numerical data , Sex Factors , Time Factors
3.
Nature ; 604(7904): 203-205, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788271
4.
Int J Gynecol Cancer ; 32(5): 583-589, 2022 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1752893

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased participation of women in academic medicine in recent decades, gender disparities persist. The gender gap in authorship and editorial boards in gynecologic oncology, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been recently evaluated. We examined gender representation and the impact of COVID-19 on authorship and editorial boards of two major peer-reviewed gynecologic oncology journals. METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original articles published in Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, comparing the most contemporary 5-year period (2016-2020) to single years in the two prior decades (1996, 2006). To assess the early impact of COVID-19, we compared publications from May 2020-April 2021 to 2019. Editorial boards were analyzed for gender composition. First names, pronouns, and institutional photographs were used to determine gender. RESULTS: There were 3022 original articles published between 2016 and 2020, 763 in 2006, and 203 in 1996. Gender was identified for 91.3% of first authors (3641 articles) and 95.6% of senior authors (3813 articles). Men comprised the majority of the editorial boards in 2021 at 57% and 61% for Gynecologic Oncology and the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, respectively. Men were overrepresented as senior authors across all study periods: 93% in 1996, 77% in 2006, and 58% in 2016-2020. Over time, representation of women as first and senior authors increased (7% in 1996, 42% in 2016-2020, p<0.00001). There was no immediate impact of the early pandemic on gender distribution of authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater representation of women over time as authors in gynecologic oncology journals, there remains gender disparity in senior authorship and editorial board representation. This presents an opportunity for the academic publishing community to advocate for deliberate strategies to achieve gender parity. Although no impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic was found, this requires ongoing surveillance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Genital Neoplasms, Female , Authorship , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Genital Neoplasms, Female/epidemiology , Genital Neoplasms, Female/therapy , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Sexism
5.
Occup Environ Med ; 79(6): 361-364, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1702769

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted productivity of female academics in the field of occupational and environmental health, by examining trends in male and female authorship of submissions during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. METHODS: Administrative data on submissions between January 2017 and November 2021 were obtained through databases held at BMJ journals. Author gender was identified using an existing algorithm based on matching names to social media accounts. The number and proportion of female and male primary (first) and senior (last) authors were examined for each quarter, and the average change in share of monthly submissions from male authors in the months since the pandemic compared with corresponding months prior to the pandemic were identified using regression models estimating least squares means. RESULTS: Among 2286 (64.7%) and 2335 (66.1%) manuscripts for which first and last author gender were identified, respectively, 49.3% of prepandemic submissions were from male first authors, increasing to 55.4% in the first year of the pandemic (difference of 6.1%, 95% CI 1.3% to 10.7%), before dropping to 46.6% from April 2021 onwards. Quarterly counts identified a large increase in submissions from male authors during the first year after the onset of the pandemic, and a smaller increase from female authors. The proportion of male last authors did not change significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there has been an increase in male productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic within the field of occupational and environmental health research that is present to a lesser extent among women.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Environmental Medicine , Authorship , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Sex Factors
6.
Ann Fam Med ; 20(1): 32-34, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1648752

ABSTRACT

This bibliometric analysis seeks to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted submission rates to Annals of Family Medicine by gender. Women represented 46.3% of all manuscript submissions included in our study (n = 1,964/4,238), spanning from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2020. The overall volume of submissions increased during COVID-19 in comparison to pre-pandemic months; however, this increase was not evenly distributed among men and women (122% increase vs 101% increase, respectively). In the early months of the pandemic, 244 submissions were authored by men (58.5%), and 173 submissions were authored by women (41.5%). The gap in women's submission rates is troubling, as it suggests they may be at greater risk of falling behind male colleagues during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Authorship , Family Practice , Fellowships and Scholarships , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
7.
Therapie ; 77(3): 273-290, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612053

ABSTRACT

The rapid spread of Covid-19 pandemic globally has thrust drugs safety into the spotlight and the public is now more aware of the role of healthcare professionals and health regulators. The present study aimed to measure the global research landscape on pharmacovigilance (PV) indexed in Scopus database for eleven years period spanning from 2010-2020. The study has sought to use quantitative and visualization technologies for data analysis and interpretation. The search strategy accumulated a total of 2052 global publications data on PV. The findings disclose that the global research productivity on PV registered 8.74% average growth rate (AGR) and 7.38% compound average growth rate (CAGR). The mean relative growth rate (RGR) and doubling time (DT) of PV global publications for the 11 years is 0.27 and 3.03, respectively. The average number of authors per paper (AAPP) is 1.52 and average productivity per author (PPA) is 0.68. The authorship patterns in PV research shows collaborative trend as most of the publications have been published by multiple authors (80.75%). The mean values of degree of collaboration (DC), collaboration index (CI), collaboration coefficient (CC) and modified collaboration coefficient (MCC) during the selected period of study are 0.79, 2.74, 0.72, and 0.73, respectively which highly significant and indicates the better authorship collaborations. France is the bellwether in PV related scientific research as produced the highest number of publications.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Authorship , Humans , Pandemics , Pharmacovigilance
8.
Trop Med Int Health ; 27(2): 137-148, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608272

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non-African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID-19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020). METHODS: Papers on COVID-19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking. RESULTS: A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID-19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non-African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non-African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low-impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North-South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa.


Subject(s)
Authorship , COVID-19 , International Cooperation , Research/standards , Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans
9.
Br J Surg ; 108(10): 1259-1260, 2021 10 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569668
10.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(12)2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566361

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Although women's health is prioritised in global research, few studies have identified structural barriers and strategies to promote female leadership and gender equality in the global health research workforce, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate gender equality in the mental health research workforce in Nepal. The scoping review assessed gender disparities in authorship of journal publications for Nepal mental health research, using databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, NepJol, NepMed) for 5 years. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 Nepali researchers to identify structural barriers limiting women's leadership. RESULTS: Of 337 articles identified, 61% were by Nepali first authors. Among Nepali first authors, 38.3% were women. Nepali women had half the odds of being first authors compared with men, when referenced against non-Nepali authors (OR 0.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.16). When limiting publications to those based on funded research, the odds were worse for first authorship among Nepali women (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.71). The qualitative analysis supported the scoping review and identified a lack of gender-friendly organisational policies, difficulties in communication and mobility, and limited opportunities for networking as barriers to women's leadership in global health research. CONCLUSION: Efforts are needed for greater representation of Nepali women in global mental health research, which will require transformative organisational policies to foster female leadership. Those in leadership need to recognise gender inequalities and take necessary steps to address them. Funding agencies should prioritise supporting organisations with gender equality task forces, policies and indicators.


Subject(s)
Authorship , Mental Health , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Nepal , Workforce
11.
Elife ; 92020 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497818

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.


Subject(s)
Authorship , Bibliometrics , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Women , COVID-19 , Efficiency , Female , Humans , Medicine , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Physicians, Women/statistics & numerical data , Sex Factors , Social Isolation , United States
12.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 109(3): 505-506, 2021 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1481113

ABSTRACT

Invisible labor is a term used by labor economists to describe work that contributes, and is often even necessary, to the economy but largely goes unrecognized and unpaid. Despite the fact that systematic review searching is a significant task for many librarians and knowledge professionals, the search process can be considered a form of invisible labor because it often goes without recognition. This occurs sometimes through not granting authorship to the librarian who performed the intellectual contribution of search development and sometimes through a devaluing of the search process by the choice of language used to describe the search. By using the term search as a passive verb or noun, authors devalue the real intellectual labor involved in searching, which includes decisions related to search terms and combinations, database selection, and other search parameters. This commentary explores the context of how searching is described through the concept of invisible labor.


Subject(s)
Information Storage and Retrieval , Librarians , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Authorship , Databases, Factual , Humans
13.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0257919, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477528

ABSTRACT

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.


Subject(s)
Authorship , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research , SARS-CoV-2 , Female , Humans , Male , Periodicals as Topic , Sex Factors
14.
Pediatr Radiol ; 52(5): 868-873, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1473992

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has heightened existing gender differences in academic productivity in medicine. There have been discrepant repercussions for women in academics due to the pandemic, including fewer publications, potentially impacting academic advancement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends over time in the gender of authors of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective review of unsolicited manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology from January 2017 to December 2020 included only submissions from North America. For each submission, genders of the first, last (senior) and corresponding authors were inferred by inspection or confirmed by internet search. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare authorship gender proportions. Quarterly comparisons between 2019 and 2020 were performed to assess for differences during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 1,018 manuscripts were submitted. There was no significant difference in female authorship over time (P > 0.05 for first, last and corresponding authors), but there was an increase in female first authorship (38.6% in 2017, 43.2% in 2020). The frequencies of female first (P = 0.03) and last (P = 0.01) authors were significantly higher for educational manuscripts (reviews and pictorial essays) versus other manuscript types. Manuscript submissions increased in the second quarter of 2020; however, there was a statistically significant decrease in last authorship by women during this period (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Female authorship of manuscripts submitted to Pediatric Radiology has remained relatively stable between 2017 and 2020. During the early phase (March-May 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic, female last authorship was significantly lower versus the previous year.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Radiology , Authorship , Bibliometrics , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics
15.
BMJ ; 375: n2288, 2021 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455692

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. POPULATION: Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: first author's gender. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Authorship , Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Manuscripts, Medical as Topic , Medical Writing , Periodicals as Topic , Sex Factors , Time Factors
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e051224, 2021 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1311170

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.


Subject(s)
Authorship , COVID-19 , Periodicals as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Europe , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL