Do Gender Differences Exist In The Publication Productivity Of Accounting Faculty?

Prior studies on gender differences in the research output of accounting faculty have provided contradictory findings.  The current study examines the publication productivity of male and female associate professors of accounting at doctoral and nondoctoral granting institutions and shows that no gender effect exists in the publication output of faculty at nondoctoral institutions.  At doctoral institutions, however, men publish at greater rates than women in the top tier accounting journals and also in a broadened set of academic accounting journals.  No gender effect exists when the journal list is expanded to include academic and professional journals.  In addition, results show that a gender selection bias for coauthors occurs as men tend toward male coauthors and women gravitate toward female collaborators.  With women underrepresented at the associate professor level at doctoral institutions, this gender selection bias may put women at a disadvantage for finding suitable research partners, which could explain their lower publication productivity

Handing the Microphone to Women: Changes in Gender Representation in Editorial Contributions Across Medical and Health Journals 2008-2018

The editorial materials in top medical and public health journals are opportunities for experts to offer thoughts that might influence the trajectory of the field. To date, while some studies have examined gender bias in the publication of editorial materials in medical journals, none have studied public health journals. In this perspective, we studied the gender ratio of the editorial materials published in the top health and medical sciences journals between 2008 and early 2018 to test whether gender bias exists. We studied a total of 59 top journals in health and medical sciences. Overall, while there is a trend of increasing proportion of female first authors, there is still a greater proportion of male than female first authors. The average male-to-female first author ratio during the study period across all journals was 2.08. Ensuring equal access and exposure through journal editorials is a critical step, albeit only one step of a longer journey, towards gender balance in health and medical sciences research. Editors of top journals have a key role to play in pushing the fields towards more balanced gender equality, and we strongly urge editors to rethink the strategies for inviting authors for editorial materials

The Editor’s Role in Preventing Gender Bias in Scientific Journals: A Challenge

One way to explore whether gender bias exists in the process of scientific publishing is to examine the end product, ie, the published works, using previously validated criteria. Williams and Borins used this method and found significant gender bias in the studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study will be challenged on the basis of the criteria used to detect bias. Are they valid\u27\u27 Who is to decide No generally agreed upon criteria exist to examine gender bias. Indeed, scientific journals have not indicated that they see a need for such examination. But even this method focuses on only a small part of the publication process. It would be of interest to also examine the process that results in the selection of what is published

Presence of women on the editorial boards of the language and linguistics journals in Spain

Many international studies have pointed out the under-representation of women on Editorial Boards of both Science and Social Science journals. Their presence as Editorial Board members is relevant as they influence and reflect the policies of the journal itself. This study analyses the participation of women on the Editorial Boards of the Spanish Language and Linguistics journals in SCOPUS. To this end, 54 journals indexed in SCOPUS were analysed, thus discriminating the gender of all members and the role that each member plays on the Editorial Board. The results show no significant differences in the participation of men and women in these Editorial Boards. It was not found any evidence of gender bias in these journals

Research on gender bias receives less attention than research on other types of bias

Bias against women in academia is well-documented. Not only are female scientists underrepresented in academic institutions, particularly in higher ranks, but there are also certain studies that include only male participants, thereby producing biased knowledge. Magdalena Formanowicz, Aleksandra Cislak and Tamar Saguy have studied another form of gender bias among scientists: bias against research on gender bias. Research on gender bias is found to be funded less often and more likely to be published in journals widely considered to be less prestigious

Librarian Engagement and Social Justice in Publishing

Countless studies and personal narratives have demonstrated that cultural, racial, and gender bias influence important aspects of academia, including in traditional book and journal publishing. Scholarly communications and LIS publishing can challenge the traditional modes of publishing both in format and content. Presenters will discuss their work in this area, addressing topics like race, culture, sexuality, and gender in formats like print books, online journals, and institutional repositories. Presenters will also talk about how to talk to faculty and graduate students about the entire scholarly communication lifecycle, and how they can intervene to circumvent cultural bias and injustice

Gender shapes the formation of review paper collaborations in microbiology

Women are underrepresented in senior academic positions within microbiology globally. Studies show that gender bias affects the progression of women in academia, but there is evidence that improving conscious awareness of bias can improve equity in this regard. Here we analyse the publication data associated with review articles within the microbiology field to investigate the statistical associations with author gender. We analyse the data from review articles published between 2010 and 2022 in three leading microbiology review journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology, Trends in Microbiology and Annual Review of Microbiology. We find a significant association between the gender of the lead author and the gender of co-authors in multi-author publications. Review articles with men lead authors have a significantly reduced proportion of women co-authors compared to reviews with women lead authors. Given the existing differences in the proportions of men and women in lead author positions, this association may have important consequences for the relative visibility of women in microbiology, along with negative impacts on scientific output relating to reduced collaboration diversity

Gender Inequalities in Publications about COVID-19 in Spain: Authorship and Sex-Disaggregated Data

Gender inequalities in biomedical literature have been widely reported in authorship as well as the scarcity of results that are stratified by sex in the studies. We conducted a bibliometric review of articles on COVID-19 published in the main Spanish medical journals between April 2020 and May 2021. The purpose of this study was to analyse differences in authorship order and composition by sex and their evolution over time, as well as the frequency of sex-disaggregated empirical results and its relationship with the author sex in articles on COVID-19 in the main Spanish biomedical journals. We identified 914 articles and 4921 authors, 57.5% men and 42.5% women. Women accounted for 36.7% of first authors and for 33.7% of last authors. Monthly variation in authorship over the course of the pandemic indicates that women were always less likely to publish as first authors. Only 1.0% of the articles broke down empirical results by sex. Disaggregation of results by sex was significantly more frequent when women were first authors and when women were the majority in the authorship. It is important to make gender inequalities visible in scientific dissemination and to promote gender-sensitive research, which can help to reduce gender bias in clinical studies as well as to design public policies for post-pandemic recovery that are more gender-equitable

Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications.

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role is rarely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing the inclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicine and public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex and gender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-related bottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and gender identity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation of gender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statistical analyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation of pregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemic bias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specify guidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to address these bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient and equitable care strategies for all

Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications

Although sex and gender are recognized as major determinants of health and immunity, their role is rarely considered in clinical practice and public health. We identified six bottlenecks preventing the inclusion of sex and gender considerations from basic science to clinical practice, precision medicine and public health policies. (i) A terminology-related bottleneck, linked to the definitions of sex and gender themselves, and the lack of consensus on how to evaluate gender. (ii) A data-related bottleneck, due to gaps in sex-disaggregated data, data on trans/non-binary people and gender identity. (iii) A translational bottleneck, limited by animal models and the underrepresentation of gender minorities in biomedical studies. (iv) A statistical bottleneck, with inappropriate statistical analyses and results interpretation. (v) An ethical bottleneck posed by the underrepresentation of pregnant people and gender minorities in clinical studies. (vi) A structural bottleneck, as systemic bias and discriminations affect not only academic research but also decision makers. We specify guidelines for researchers, scientific journals, funding agencies and academic institutions to address these bottlenecks. Following such guidelines will support the development of more efficient and equitable care strategies for all