Gender Disparities in Academic Productivity and Promotion Among Endocrine Surgery Faculty

Ammann, Allison M; Delman, Aaron M.; Bethi, Mridula; Turner, Kevin M.; Sedaghat, Ahmad R.; Holm, Tammy M.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.045

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to a 2013 publication, authorship attribution to females, sex terminology used in source publication, only represent 20% of author attribution in research publications [18]. Bibliometric analysis in specialties inside and outside pathology confirms gender imbalances in publication output and influence [5–7, 9, 11, 12, 17]. This is true despite the increasing number of women physicians entering academic medicine and a slightly higher proportion of women working in academia relative to men in our cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Despite gender parity in many specialties in academic medicine (men and women at 50:50 ratios), several studies have shown discrepancies in scholastic bibliometric metrics of first author, senior author, corresponding author and citation-based analyses between genders [4][5][6][7][8]. For example, in ophthalmology, women physicians had lower academic productivity than men physicians and were less frequently identified in first-or senior-author positions [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early‐career transfusion medicine physicians

Ipe,

Tanhehco,

Booth

et al. 2024

Vox Sanguinis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesPromotion in academic medicine requires evidence of the creation and dissemination of scholarly output, primarily through peer‐reviewed publications. Studies demonstrate that scholarly activity and impact are lower for women physicians than for men physicians, especially during the early stages of their academic careers. This report reviewed physicians' academic productivity after passing their Blood Banking/Transfusion Medicine (BBTM) subspecialty exam to determine if gender discrepancies exist.MethodsA cross‐sectional analysis was designed to determine trends in scholarly activity for women physicians versus men physicians in BBTM. Indexed publications were reviewed using iCite, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis tool, from 1 January 2017 to 1 December 2021, for BBTM examinees who passed the sub‐speciality fellowship exam in the years 2016 through 2018.ResultsOverall, women physicians had statistically significant fewer total career publications (median 6 vs. 9 cumulative papers, p = 0.03). Women published at a lower rate after passing BBTM boards, which was not statistically significant (0.7 vs. 1.3 publications per year). Other statistically significant findings include fewer early‐career BBTM women physicians were first authors compared with men physicians (p = 0.03) and impact as assessed by relative citation ratio was higher for men (p = 0.01).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that there are gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact on early‐career BBTM physicians. Given that this cohort of BBTM physicians are early‐career professionals, the significant difference in first authorship publications between women and men physicians is especially concerning. Publication metrics should be followed to ensure equitable research environments for early‐career BBTM physicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early‐career transfusion medicine physicians

Ipe,

Tanhehco,

Booth

et al. 2024

Vox Sanguinis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of publications reflects the publication contributions of a country, institution, or individual but not the impact of those contributions. To overcome this drawback, the average citations per article [ 66 , 67 ] and H-index [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] were introduced to the quality evaluation. In this study, countries were ranked based on the contribution percentage, and we found that the top five countries with outstanding contributions to TB vaccine research were the USA, the UK, France, Germany, and Denmark ( Figure S1 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Summary on Tuberculosis Vaccine Development—Where to Go?

Jiang

Sun

Cheng

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is an old infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent and control TB. However, there is relatively little literature that systematically analyzes the progress of new TB vaccine research from a bibliometric perspective. This study was conducted to examine the development of TB vaccines over the past 20 years and to identify research priorities and directions for the future. Methods: The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database was selected to search the literature related to TB vaccines. The countries, institutions, authors, journals, references, and keywords of each publication were analyzed and visualized using the VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Bibliometrix software. Furthermore, GraphPad Prism and Microsoft Excel 365 were also used for statistical analysis. Results: As of 20 October 2022, 7960 publications related to TB vaccines were identified with 288,478 citations. The United States of America (USA) accounted for the largest share (2658, 33.40%), followed by the United Kingdom (UK, 1301, 16.34%), and China (685, 8.6%). Regarding affiliations, the University of London had the most publications (427) and shared the highest H-index (76) with the Statens Serum Institut of Denmark. In terms of the number of articles for the journals and authors, the journal Vaccine ranked first with 629 articles. Professor Peter Anderssen has published the highest number of papers (160). The burst keywords and thematic maps analysis showed that future trends in TB vaccine development would focus on exploring the interaction mechanisms between M. tuberculosis and the host. Conclusion: The number of publications on TB vaccines has grown over the past two decades. Developed countries play a significant role in TB vaccine research, and developing countries are fast catching up. We believe that future research will be aimed at understanding the fine molecular mechanisms of host–pathogen interaction, leading to the development of better TB vaccines.

show abstract

“…Our study found that women H&N faculty had lower h ‐indices on average than the male fellowship graduates, even when controlling for years in practice. While the h ‐index is just one factor used in consideration of academic promotion and one's academic productivity, it has been a topic of study regarding gender disparities 11–13 . Previous studies have found that in some otolaryngology subspecialties women have similar academic productivity to men, but not in H&N, pediatrics, laryngology, or facial plastics 4,14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the hindex is just one factor used in consideration of academic promotion and one's academic productivity, it has been a topic of study regarding gender disparities. [11][12][13] Previous studies have found that in some otolaryngology subspecialties women have similar academic productivity to men, but not in H&N, pediatrics, laryngology, or facial plastics. 4,14 Interestingly, this gender gap may be related to timing in one's career.…”

Section: Academic Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing gender trends in head and neck fellowship graduates from 2008 to 2018

Miller,

Stevens,

Tang

et al. 2023

Head & Neck

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesEvaluation of potential gender gaps among Head and Neck (H&N) surgeons can highlight areas for increased support of female H&N surgeons and improve gender diversity within the subspecialty. To evaluate gender trends in representation and career trajectory among recent H&N surgery fellowship graduates.MethodsThis cross‐sectional analysis included graduates from Head and Neck Surgery fellowships accredited by the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) from 2008 to 2018. Additional demographic data was collected via publicly available websites including gender, years in practice, practice location, type of practice, h‐index, and academic rank. The primary outcomes were the proportion of female Head and Neck fellowship graduates and gender trends in career trajectory and academic productivity (via h‐index).ResultsBetween 2008 and 2018, 449 surgeons graduated from Head and Neck surgery fellowship with females comprising 99 of 449 graduates (22%). Female representation increased from 1 of 30 (3%) graduates in 2008 to 17 of 52 (33%) in 2018. A proportionally similar number of women graduating fellowship also practiced in an academic setting (23%). There were fewer female assistant, associate and full professors compared with their male counterparts. Women had lower h‐indices compared with men even when controlling for years in practice (mean 11.4 vs. 8.2, p < 0.03).ConclusionDespite the increase in women graduating from H&N surgery fellowships, gender disparities within academic rank and academic productivity as measured by h‐index remain. While a proportional number of women completing fellowship are entering academic practice, additional investigation and support is needed to address the potential gender gaps identified within academic H&N surgery.

show abstract

Gender Disparities in Academic Productivity and Promotion Among Endocrine Surgery Faculty

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early‐career transfusion medicine physicians

Gender differences in scholarly productivity of early‐career transfusion medicine physicians

A Summary on Tuberculosis Vaccine Development—Where to Go?

Characterizing gender trends in head and neck fellowship graduates from 2008 to 2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About