Numerous studies have shown that female scientists tend to publish significantly fewer publications than do their male colleagues. In this study, we have analyzed whether similar differences also can be found in terms of citation rates. Based on a large-scale study of 8,500 Norwegian researchers and more than 37,000 publications covering all areas of knowledge, we conclude that the publications of female researchers are less cited than are those of men, although the differences are not large. The gender differences in citation rates can be attributed to differences in productivity. There is a cumulative advantage effect of increasing publication output on citation rates. Since the women in our study publish significantly fewer publications than do men, they benefit less from this effect. The study also provides results on how publication and citation rates vary according to scientific position, age, and discipline.

In a sample of presumably healthy 75/76 year olds in Oslo, the associations between neighbourhood level violence and physical activity (among men), and fear of violence and physical activity (among women), are of the same sizes as those between somatic health and physical activity. These two dimensions of violence have, in contrast with somatic health, an explanatory function in exploring differences in physical activity between neighbourhoods in Oslo.

While many studies have compared research productivity across scientific fields, they have mostly focused on the “hard sciences,” in many cases due to limited publication data for the “softer” disciplines; these studies have also typically been based on a small sample of researchers. In this study we use complete publication data for all researchers employed at Norwegian universities over a 4‐year period, linked to biographic data for each researcher. Using this detailed and complete data set, we compare research productivity between five main scientific domains (and subfields within them), across academic positions, and in terms of age and gender. The study's key finding is that researchers from medicine, natural sciences, and technology are most productive when whole counts of publications are used, while researchers from the humanities and social sciences are most productive when article counts are fractionalized according to the total number of authors. The strong differences between these fields in publishing forms and patterns of coauthorship raise questions as to whether publication indicators can justifiably be used for comparison of productivity across scientific disciplines.

This paper addresses gender differences in international research collaboration measured through international co-authorship. The study is based on a dataset consisting of 5600 Norwegian researchers and their publication output during a 3-year period (44,000 publications). Two different indicators are calculated. First, the share of researchers that have been involved in international collaboration as measured by co-authorship, and second, the share of their publications with international co-authorship. The study shows that the field of research is by far the most important factor influencing the propensity to collaborate internationally. There are large differences from humanities on the one hand, where international collaboration in terms of co-authorship is less common, to the natural sciences on the other, where such collaboration is very frequent. On an overall level, we find distinct gender differences in international research collaboration in Norway in the favour of men. However, men and women are not equally distributed across fields and there are relatively more female researchers in fields where the international collaboration rates generally are lower. When the data are analysed by scientific field, academic position, and publication productivity of the researchers, the gender differences in the propensity to collaborate with colleagues in other countries are minor only, and not statistically significant. Concerning gender inequality in science, the main challenge seems to be the lower productivity level of female researchers, which obviously hinders their academic career development. Differences in international collaboration are unlikely to be an important factor in this respect, at least not in the Norwegian research context analysed in this study.

Objective: To explore various contributors to people's reporting of self reported air pollution problems in area of living, including GIS-modeled air pollution, and to investigate whether those with respiratory or other chronic diseases tend to over-report air pollution problems, compared to healthy people. Methods:Cross-sectional data from the Oslo Health Study (2000)(2001) were linked with GISmodeled air pollution data from the Norwegian Institute of Air Research. Multivariate regression analyses were performed. 14 294 persons aged 30, 40, 45, 60 or 75 years old with complete information on modeled and self reported air pollution were included.

The scientific performance of mobile and non-mobile researchers is analysed using publication and citation indicators in a study of more than 11,000 Norwegian university researchers. Two types of mobility are investigated: change of work place during the scientific career and mobility from an academic institution granting the highest degree to another work place for the scientific career. The study shows that mobile researchers tend to have slightly higher publication and citation rates than other researchers, but the results are not unambiguous.

Findings from this study suggest that socially deprived neighborhoods have higher exposure to air pollution. Deprivation at both the individual and neighborhood level is associated with air pollution, accounting for some of the excess mortality associated with air pollution in these neighborhoods.

BackgroundThe association between area deprivation and health has mostly been examined in cross-sectional studies or prospective studies with short follow-up. These studies have rarely taken migration into account. This is a possible source of misclassification of exposure, i.e. an unknown number of study participants are attributed an exposure of area deprivation that they may have experienced too short for it to have any influence. The aim of this article was to examine to what extent associations between area deprivation and health outcomes were biased by recent migration.MethodsBased on data from the Oslo Health Study, a cross-sectional study conducted in 2000 in Oslo, Norway, we used six health outcomes (self rated health, mental health, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking and exercise) and considered migration nine years prior to the study conduct. Migration into Oslo, between the areas of Oslo, and the changes in area deprivation during the period were taken into account. Associations were investigated by multilevel logistic regression analyses.ResultsAfter adjustment for individual socio-demographic variables we found significant associations between area deprivation and all health outcomes. Accounting for migration into Oslo and between areas of Oslo did not change these associations much. However, the people who migrated into Oslo were younger and had lower prevalences of unfavourable health outcomes than those who were already living in Oslo. But since they were evenly distributed across the area deprivation quintiles, they had little influence on the associations between area deprivation and health. Evidence of selective migration within Oslo was weak, as both moving up and down in the deprivation hierarchy was associated with significantly worse health than not moving.ConclusionWe have documented significant associations between area deprivation and health outcomes in Oslo after adjustment for socio-demographic variables in a cross-sectional study. These associations were weakly biased by recent migration. From our results it still appears that migration prior to study conduct may be relevant to investigate even within a relatively short period of time, whereas changes in area deprivation during such a period is of limited interest.