Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Symonds MR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1762413 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance.
Symonds Matthew R E MR Gemmell Neil J NJ Braisher Tamsin L TL Gorringe Kylie L KL Elgar Mark A MA
PloS one 20061227
We examined the publication records of a cohort of 168 life scientists in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology to assess gender differences in research performance. Clear discrepancies in publication rate between men and women appear very early in their careers and this has consequences for the subsequent citation of their work. We show that a recently proposed index designed to rank scientists fairly is in fact strongly biased against female researchers, and advocate a modified index t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We examine gender differences among the six PhD student cohorts 2004-2009 at the California Institute of Technology using a new dataset that includes information on trainees and their advisors and enables us to construct detailed measures of teams at the advisor level. We focus on the relationship between graduate student publications and: (1) their gender; (2) the gender of the advisor, (3) the gender pairing between the advisor and the student and (4) the gender composition of the team. We find that female graduate students co-author on average 8.5% fewer papers than men; that students writing with female advisors publish 7.7% more. Of particular note is that gender pairing matters: male students working with female advisors publish 10.0% more than male students working with male advisors; women students working with male advisors publish 8.5% less. There is no difference between the publishing patterns of male students working with male advisors and female students working with female advisors. The results persist and are magnified when we focus on the quality of the published articles, as measured by average Impact Factor, instead of number of articles. We find no evidence that the number of publications relates to the gender composition of the team. Although the gender effects are reasonably modest, past research on processes of positive feedback and cumulative advantage suggest that the difference will grow, not shrink, over the careers of these recent cohorts.
| S-EPMC4711938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThere is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies.Design and methodologyTo examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom's recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF's results and HEFCE's funding allocations.FindingsA world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles.Practical implicationsThe findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general.OriginalityAccording to the author's knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output.
| S-EPMC5507403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A standard unsupervised analysis is to cluster observations into discrete groups using a dissimilarity measure, such as Euclidean distance. If there does not exist a ground-truth label for each observation necessary for external validity metrics, then internal validity metrics, such as the tightness or separation of the clusters, are often used. However, the interpretation of these internal metrics can be problematic when using different dissimilarity measures as they have different magnitudes and ranges of values that they span. To address this problem, previous work introduced the "scale-agnostic" $G_{+}$ discordance metric; however, this internal metric is slow to calculate for large data. Furthermore, in the setting of unsupervised clustering with $k$ groups, we show that $G_{+}$ varies as a function of the proportion of observations assigned to each of the groups (or clusters), referred to as the group balance, which is an undesirable property. To address this problem, we propose a modification of $G_{+}$, referred to as $H_{+}$, and demonstrate that $H_{+}$ does not vary as a function of group balance using a simulation study and with public single-cell RNA-sequencing data. Finally, we provide scalable approaches to estimate $H_{+}$, which are available in the $\mathtt{fasthplus}$ R package.
| S-EPMC10724244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal.
| S-EPMC6114708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively investigated for their regenerative, immune-modulatory, and wound healing properties. While the laboratory studies have suggested that MSC's have a unique potential for modulating the etiopathology of multiple diseases, the results from clinical trials have not been encouraging or reproducible. One of the explanations for such variability is explained by the "art" of isolating and propagating MSCs. Therefore, establishing more than minimal criteria to define MSC would help understand best protocols to isolate, propagate and deliver MSCs. Developing a calibration standard, a database and a set of functional tests would be a better quality metric for MSCs. In this review, we discuss the importance of selecting a standard, issues associated with coming up with such a standard and how these issues can be mitigated.
| S-EPMC4943322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In vitro cell proliferation assays are widely used in pharmacology, molecular biology, and drug discovery. Using theoretical modeling and experimentation, we show that current metrics of antiproliferative small molecule effect suffer from time-dependent bias, leading to inaccurate assessments of parameters such as drug potency and efficacy. We propose the drug-induced proliferation (DIP) rate, the slope of the line on a plot of cell population doublings versus time, as an alternative, time-independent metric.
| S-EPMC4887341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Worldwide, the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) represents the predominant viral agent causing bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children. To conduct research and tackle existing healthcare disparities, RSV-related research activities around the globe need to be described. Hence, we assessed the associated scientific output (represented by research articles) by geographical, chronological and socioeconomic criteria and analysed the authors publishing in the field by gender. Also, the 15 most cited articles and the most prolific journals were identified for RSV research. DESIGN:Retrospective, descriptive study. SETTING:The NewQIS (New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science) platform was employed to identify RSV-related articles published in the Web of Science until 2013. We performed a numerical analysis of all articles, and examined citation-based aspects (eg, citation rates); results were visualised by density equalising mapping tools. RESULTS:We identified 4600 RSV-related articles. The USA led the field; US-American authors published 2139 articles (46.5%% of all identified articles), which have been cited 83?000 times. When output was related to socioeconomic benchmarks such as gross domestic product or Research and Development expenditures, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia and Chile were ranked in leading positions. A total of 614 articles on RSV (13.34% of all articles) were attributed to scientific collaborations. These were primarily established between high-income countries. The gender analysis indicated that male scientists dominated in all countries except Brazil. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of RSV-related research articles originated from high-income countries whereas developing nations showed only minimal publication productivity and were barely part of any collaborative networks. Hence, research capacity in these nations should be increased in order to assist in addressing inequities in resource allocation and the clinical burden of RSV in these countries.
| S-EPMC5577886 | biostudies-other
Project description:Participating in undergraduate research with mentorship from faculty may be particularly important for ensuring the persistence of women and minority students in science. Yet many life science undergraduates at research universities are mentored by graduate or postdoctoral researchers (i.e., postgraduates). We surveyed a national sample of undergraduate life science researchers about the mentoring structure of their research experiences and the outcomes they realized from participating in research. We observed two common mentoring structures: an open triad with undergraduate-postgraduate and postgraduate-faculty ties but no undergraduate-faculty tie, and a closed triad with ties among all three members. We found that men and underrepresented minority (URM) students are significantly more likely to report a direct tie to their faculty mentors (closed triad) than women, white, and Asian students. We also determined that mentoring structure was associated with differences in student outcomes. Women's mentoring structures were associated with their lower scientific identity, lower intentions to pursue a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) PhD, and lower scholarly productivity. URM students' mentoring structures were associated with higher scientific identity, greater intentions to pursue a STEM PhD, and higher scholarly productivity. Asian students reported lower scientific identity and intentions to pursue a STEM PhD, which were unrelated to their mentoring structures.
| S-EPMC5459252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGender inequity in academic medicine persists despite increases in the number of women physicians. We sought to explore gender differences in research productivity for academic psychiatrists in Canada.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study of the 3379 psychiatrists in all 17 university departments of psychiatry in Canada, research productivity, as measured by the h-index and number of publications, was compared between women and men using a negative log binomial regression model to generate relative rates (RRs), adjusted for career duration (aRR). Findings were stratified by academic rank, institution region, and institution size. A subanalysis of those with 10 or more publications was conducted as a proxy for identifying physicians on a research track.ResultsWomen (43% of the sample) had a lower mean (standard deviation) h-index than men (2.87 [6.49] vs. 5.31 [11.1]; aRR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.72). Differences were significant only for junior faculty and not for associate and full professors. Comparison by number of publications followed a similar pattern (aRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55). Among those with 10 or more publications (n = 721), differences between men and women were smaller than in the overall cohort for both the h-index (aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.87) and number of publications (aRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72).ConclusionsGender differences in research productivity at the national level in academic psychiatry in Canada support a call to adopt a more systematic approach to promoting equitable opportunities for women in research, especially in early career, to improve diversity and enhance future psychiatric research and discovery.
| S-EPMC6591752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coherent Diffraction Imaging (CDI), a technique where an object is reconstructed from a single (2D or 3D) diffraction pattern, recovers the lost diffraction phases without a priori knowledge of the extent (support) of the object. The uncertainty of the object support can lead to over-fitting and prevents an unambiguous metric evaluation of solutions. We propose to use a 'free' log-likelihood indicator, where a small percentage of points are masked from the reconstruction algorithms, as an unbiased metric to evaluate the validity of computed solutions, independent of the sample studied. We also show how a set of solutions can be analysed through an eigen-decomposition to yield a better estimate of the real object. Example analysis on experimental data is presented both for a test pattern dataset, and the diffraction pattern from a live cyanobacteria cell. The method allows the validation of reconstructions on a wide range of materials (hard condensed or biological), and should be particularly relevant for 4th generation synchrotrons and X-ray free electron lasers, where large, high-throughput datasets require a method for unsupervised data evaluation.
| S-EPMC7021796 | biostudies-literature