The gender gap in schizophrenia research

Bendels, M. H. K.; Bauer, Jan; Schöffel, Norman; Groneberg, David A.

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2017.06.019

Cited by 15 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Herein we present, to our knowledge, the first analysis that uses bibliometric tools to address the gender equality of scholarly productivity in epilepsy research. Although analysis reveals a moderate underrepresentation of female authorships, with a FAP of 39.4% at the global level, the female proportion in epilepsy research is significantly higher than percentages determined for the whole area of science (30%), 10 for six major medical journals (34%), 3 and for related studies concerning the research fields of schizophrenia (37.6%) 11 and stroke (36.2%, not published). The subanalysis demonstrates an uneven distribution of female authors across different authorships, with significantly higher female odds of holding first or coauthorships and a lower female odds of occupying last authorships (FAOR-tuple (+, +, À)).…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…As is the case in many other disciplines, women publish fewer papers than men: 43.8% female authors are responsible for 39.4% of the authorships in epilepsy research. This mismatch is less pronounced compared to other medical disciplines like the field of schizophrenia research, where 45.5% female authors hold 37.6% of the authorships or in stroke research, where 40.4% female authors are responsible for 36.2% of the authorships (authors' unpublished data).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Conceptually, scientific authorships allow for an objective and easily accessible data set to aid in determining the participation ration of female scholars and their integration in the hierarchical scientific system: in life science, it is informal practice that the list of authors is often strictly ordered by hierarchy, whereby early career researchers usually publish as first‐ or coauthors, whereas research leaders often prefer the last‐author position . Furthermore, authorships are key performance indicators in life science: first authorships usually characterize the researchers who contributed most to the work, whereas last authorships are taken as a sign of successful group leadership, for example, by committees making this a criterion in hiring and granting . Consequently, in life science, the prestige of authorships follows a ranked order, with a higher reputation of first and last authorships and a lower reputation of coauthorships …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Furthermore, authorships are key performance indicators in life science: first authorships usually characterize the researchers who contributed most to the work, whereas last authorships are taken as a sign of successful group leadership, for example, by committees making this a criterion in hiring and granting. 11,13 Consequently, in life science, the prestige of authorships follows a ranked order, with a higher reputation of first and last authorships and a lower reputation of coauthorships. 13 Based on these considerations, Lariviere and colleagues published a study in December 2013 in Nature, 10 where they presented a global and cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis of the relationship between gender and research output in 5,483,841 research papers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this trend might reflect a change in the gender preferences of researchers seeking collaborators, there are alternative (and perhaps more likely) explanations. For example, this trend might result from the increasing number of women working in senior positions in STEMM over the past decade [63–65]. As shown in Figure 6, if enough coauthorships are between junior and senior researchers, a large gender gap between career stages can give the appearance of heterophily.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences

Holman

Morandin

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4Evidence suggests that women in academia are hindered by conscious and un-5 conscious biases, and often feel excluded from formal and informal opportunities for 6 research collaboration. In addition to ensuring fairness and helping to redress gender 7 imbalance in the academic workforce, increasing women's access to collaboration could 8 help scientific progress by drawing on more of the available human capital. Here, we 9 test whether researchers preferentially collaborate with same-gendered colleagues, using 10 more stringent methods and a larger dataset than in past work. Our results reaffirm that 11 researchers preferentially co-publish with colleagues of the same gender, and show that 12 this 'gender homophily' is slightly stronger today than it was 10 years ago. Contrary 13 to our expectations, we found no evidence that homophily is driven mostly by senior 14 academics, and no evidence that homophily is stronger in fields where women are in the 15 minority. Interestingly, journals with a high impact factor for their discipline tended to 16 have comparatively low homophily, as predicted if mixed-gender teams produce better 17 research. We discuss some potential causes of gender homophily in science.

show abstract

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmic Research

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Previous studies examined sex distributions in different medical faculties, especially because increasingly more women entered the medical field in recent decades.Little is known at present about the female representation in ophthalmic research.OBJECTIVE To clarify sex equalities in ophthalmic research by evaluating the representation of female authorships.DESIGN AND SETTING This bibliometric analysis included original English-language articles published in ophthalmologic journals indexed in the Web of Science from January 2008 to August 2018. Authorships were assigned by sex according to first name. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESOutcomes included the proportion of female authorships, odds ratios of women holding prestigious first and last authorships compared with men (measured by the prestige index), citation rates, a productivity analysis, and cross-journal and transnational female representation within ophthalmic research. The hypothesis was formulated during data collection. RESULTS Bibliometric data were abstracted from 87 640 original articles published in 248 ophthalmologic journals. Of 344 433 total authorships, female scholars held 34.9% (120 305 of 344 433) of all authorships, 37.1% (24 924 of 67 226) of first authorships, 36.7% (77 295 of 210 372) of coauthorships, and 27.1% (18 086 of 66 835) of last authorships.The female-to-male odds ratio was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.10-1.14) for first authorships, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22) for coauthorships, and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64) for last authorships, with annual growth rates of 1.6% overall, 1.6% for first authorships, 1.3% for coauthorships, and 2.5% for last authorships. Women were underrepresented in prestigious authorships (prestige index = −0.22). The underrepresentation remains almost stable for articles with many authors (prestige index = −0.17 for articles with >9 authors per article). Articles with female key authors were cited slightly less frequently (95% CI for female vs male authors, 10.8-11.0 vs 11.5-11.7 citations/articles). Women published fewer papers than men (42.5% [n = 41 383]; women held 34.9% [n = 120 207] of the authorships), show cross-journal uniformity and differences among single countries (change in prestige index = 0.66 vs 1.96). Overall, 44.1% of female authorships and a sex-neutral distribution of prestigious authorships are prognosticated for 2028.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This algorithm analysis suggests the integration of women into ophthalmic research is average compared with other disciplines. A sex-specific gap exists for last authorship, suggesting career inequalities. With a growing number of female researchers in ophthalmology, the number of women in senior ranks may increase in the future.

show abstract

The gender gap in schizophrenia research

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

Gender equality in academic research on epilepsy—a study on scientific authorships

Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmic Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About