Does Reported Funding Differ by Gender in the Surgical Literature?

Taira, Breena R.; Jahnes, Katherine; Singer, Adam J.; McLarty, Allison

doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31816c401d

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be due to fewer female surgeons, or differences in career success and/or academic productivity between genders. Moreover, most surgical residents, surgeons, research leaders and departmental chairs in the USA, and editorial board members in top ranked surgical journals are male (Kurichi et al, 2005;Taira et al, 2008). However, our study could not identify a reason for the authorship inequality.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Pitak‐Arnnop

Sader

Rapidis

et al. 2010

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…The gender gap in authorship still exists as evidenced by our observation and others studies (Kurichi et al, 2005;Taira et al, 2008). The number of women first authors in surgical literature remains low, despite increasing over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Pitak‐Arnnop

Sader

Rapidis

et al. 2010

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Firstly, females might develop fewer publications than male colleagues. However, the gender difference in publication productivity is still highly controversial in US (Schroen et al 2004;Housri et al 2008;Taira et al 2008), and we need to evaluate the gender difference in publication by Japanese surgeons. The second possible reason is sexual and gender discrimination or harassment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Timeline analysis since 2004, when gender data were first recorded, showed a yearly increase in the number and proportion of female clinical academics in UK medical schools (Medical Schools Council 2012). The other bulk of research on gender gap in academic medicine was based on these databases (Bickel et al 2002;Jagsi et al 2006;Kass et al 2006;Taira et al 2008;Ahmadiyeh et al 2010;Isaac et al 2010;Zhuge et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Inequality in Career Advancement for Females in Japanese Academic Surgery

Okoshi

Nomura

Fukami

et al. 2014

Tohoku J. Exp. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past three decades, the participation of women in medicine has increased from 10. 6% (1986) to 19.7% (2012) in Japan. However, women continue to be underrepresented in the top tiers of academic medicine. We highlight gender inequality and discuss the difficulties faced by female surgeons in Japanese academic surgery. Using anonymous and aggregate employment data of medical doctors at Kyoto University Hospital from 2009 and 2013, and a commercially-published faculty roster in 2012-2013, we compared gender balance stratified by a professional and an academic rank. The numbers of total and female doctors who worked at Kyoto University Hospital were 656 and 132 (20.1%) in 2009 and 655 and 132 (20.2%) in 2013, respectively. Approximately half the men (n = 281) were in temporary track and the rest (n = 242) were in tenure track, but only one fifth of women (n = 24) were in tenure track compared to 108 women in temporary track (p < 0.0001) in 2013. There were three female associate professors in basic medicine (8.1%), two female professors in clinical non-surgical medicine (3.9%) and one female lecturer in clinical surgical medicine (2.3%) in 2012. Fewer female doctors were at senior positions and at tenure positions than male doctors at Kyoto University Hospital. There were no female associate and full professors in surgery. The status of faculty members indicates the gender differences in leadership opportunities in Japanese academic surgery.

show abstract

“…Bibliometric studies have reported on methodologies and evidence base using research design hierarchies (Papatheodorou et al 2008;Rochon et al 2004); recognised recommendations (Yoshii et al 2009), and grading systems (Brooke et al 2009;Moseley et al 2002). Collaboration has been quantified using the number of authors (Levsky et al 2007;Papatheodorou et al 2008), gender (Jagsi et al 2006), qualification (Taira et al 2008), affiliation (Andres Iglesias et al 2007, Coleman et al 2007Hendrix 2008;Richter et al 2008;Williams and Kendall 2007) and geographical location of authors (Clarke et al 2007;Garcia-Garcia et al 2008;Yang and Zhao 2008;Gonzalez Block 2006;Soteriades et al 2005). These indices, rather than assessing consumer demand, provide descriptive data on the product (research outputs) and the process of knowledge production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evidence base, quantitation and collaboration: three novel indices for bibliometric content analysis

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometric measurements, though controversial, are useful in providing measures of research performance in a climate of research competition and marketisation. Numerous bibliometric studies have been performed which rely on traditional indices (such as the journal impact factor and citation index) and provide little descriptive data regarding the actual characteristics of research. The purpose of this study was two-fold, to develop three novel bibliometric indices, designed to describe the characteristics of research (relating to evidence base, quantitation and collaboration), and to apply them in a crosssectional audit of original research articles published in Australian professional association journals across medicine, nursing and allied health in 2007. Results revealed considerable variation in bibliometric indices across these journals. There were emerging clusters of journals that published collaborative research using higher levels of evidence and reported quantitative data, with others featuring articles using lower levels of evidence, fewer quantitative data and less collaboration among authors.

show abstract

Does Reported Funding Differ by Gender in the Surgical Literature?

Abstract: The percentage of original surgical articles first authored by women is greater than the percentage of female surgeons. Funding rates of original articles were similar among men and women.

Cited by 15 publications

References 11 publications

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Gender Inequality in Career Advancement for Females in Japanese Academic Surgery

Evidence base, quantitation and collaboration: three novel indices for bibliometric content analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About