The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Duch J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3520933 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFor students entering a science PhD program, a tenure-track faculty research position is often perceived as the ideal long-term goal. A relatively small percentage of individuals ultimately achieve this goal, however, with the vast majority of PhD recipients ultimately finding employment in industry or government positions. Given the disparity between academic career ambitions and outcomes, it is useful to understand factors that may predict those outcomes. Toward this goal, the current study examined employment status of PhD graduates from biomedical sciences programs at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU AMC) and related this to metrics of predoctoral publication records, as well as to other potentially important factors, such as sex and time-since-degree, to determine if these measures could predict career outcomes.MethodsDemographic information (name, PhD program, graduation date, sex) of CU AMC biomedical sciences PhD graduates between 2000 and 2015 was obtained from University records. Career outcomes (academic faculty vs. non-faculty) and predoctoral publication records (number and impact factors of first-author and non-first-author publications) were obtained via publicly available information. Relationships between predoctoral publication record and career outcomes were investigated by (a) comparing faculty vs. non-faculty publication metrics, using t-tests, and (b) investigating the ability of predoctoral publication record, sex, and time-since-degree to predict career outcomes, using logistic regression.ResultsSignificant faculty vs. non-faculty differences were observed in months since graduation (p < 0.001), first-author publication number (p = 0.001), average first-author impact factor (p = 0.006), and highest first-author impact factor (p = 0.004). With sex and months since graduation as predictors of career outcome, the logistic regression model was significant (p < 0.001), with both being male and having more months since graduation predicting career status. First-author related publication metrics (number of publications, average impact factor, highest impact factor) all significantly improved model fit (χ2 < 0.05 for all) and were all significant predictors of faculty status (p < 0.05 for all). Non-first-author publication metrics did not significantly improve model fit or predict faculty status.DiscussionResults suggest that while sex and months since graduation also predict career outcomes, a strong predoctoral first-author publication record may increase likelihood of obtaining an academic faculty research position. Compared to non-faculty, individuals employed in faculty positions produced more predoctoral first-author publications, with these being in journals with higher impact factors. Furthermore, first-author publication record, sex, and months since graduation were significant predictors of faculty status.
| S-EPMC6174868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo review systematically the evidence about what factors influence the decision to choose or not choose a career in academic medicine.DesignA systematic review of relevant literature from 1990 to May 2005.Data sourcesSearches of The Cochrane Library, Medline (using Ovid and PubMed) from 1990 to May 2005, and EMBASE from 1990 to May 2005 were completed to identify relevant studies that explored the influential factors. Additional articles were identified from searching the bibliographies of retrieved articles.Selection of studiesWe attempted to identify studies that included residents, fellows, or staff physicians. No restrictions were placed on the study methodologies identified and all articles presenting empirical evidence were retrieved. For cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, minimum inclusion criteria were the presence of defined groups, and the ability to extract relevant data. For surveys that involved case series, minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the population, and the availability of extractable data. Minimum inclusion criteria for qualitative studies were descriptions of the sampling strategy and methods.ResultsThe search identified 251 abstracts; 25 articles were included in this review. Completion of an MD with a graduate degree or fellowship program is associated with a career in academic medicine. Of the articles identified in this review, this finding is supported by the highest quality of evidence. Similarly, the completion of research and publication of this research in medical school and residency are associated with a career in academic medicine. The desire to teach, conduct research, and the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided in academia may also persuade people to choose this career path. The influence of a role model or a mentor was reported by physicians to impact their decision making. Trainees' interest in academic medicine wanes as they progress through their residency.ConclusionsIn order to revitalize academic medicine, we must engage trainees and retain their interest throughout their training. Research opportunities for medical students, and fellowships or graduate training can meet this challenge and influence career choice. Initiatives to stimulate and maintain interest in academic medicine should be evaluated in prospective studies across multiple sites.
| S-EPMC1924755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding factors in internal medicine (IM) resident career choice may reveal important needed interventions for recruitment and diversity in IM primary care and its subspecialties. Self-reported learner confidence is higher in men than in women in certain areas of practicing medicine, but has never been explored as a factor in career choice.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to elucidate associations between confidence, gender, and career choice.DesignIM residents completed a 31-item survey rating confidence in procedural, clinical, and communication skills on a 9-point Likert scale. Residents also reported anticipated career choice and rated influence of factors. Associations between gender and confidence scale scores, gender and career choice, and confidence and career choice were analyzed using t tests, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression controlled for postgraduate year (PGY), institution, and specialty choice.Participants292 IM residents at Northwestern and University of Texas (UT) Southwestern MAIN MEASURES: Resident gender, self-reported confidence, career choice KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 79.6% (n = 292), of them 50.3% women. Overall self-reported confidence increased with training (PGY-1 4.9 (1.1); PGY-2 6.2 (1.0); PGY-3 7.4 (1.0); p < 0.001). Men had higher confidence than women (men 6.6 (1.5); women 6.3 (1.4), p = 0.06), with the greatest difference in procedures. High confidence in men was associated with choice of procedural careers, whereas there was no association between confidence and career in women.ConclusionsThis is the first study demonstrating a gender difference in self-reported confidence and career choice. There is a positive correlation in men: higher self-reported confidence with procedural specialties, lower with general internal medicine. Women's self-reported confidence had no association. Further investigation is needed to elucidate causative factors for differences in self-reported confidence by gender, and whether alterations in level of self-reported confidence produce a downstream effect on career choice.
| S-EPMC7947144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Openings for an assistant professor often attract a hundred or more applicants. This allows hiring committees to select highly productive candidates based on their number of publications. Applicants with more rapid publication would be hired with little or no postgraduate experience, but those with slower rates of publication would need more postgraduate experience. Our results show an association of more postgraduate experience, slower rates of publication, a smaller research group, and slower promotion when years are measured from PhD granting; conversely little or no postgraduate experience is generally associated with more rapid publication, a larger research group, and faster promotion. These results suggest the unexpected result that the number and rate of publication have opposite effects on the years from PhD granting to promotion which parametric survival analysis using a log-logistic distribution with gamma frailty confirmed. Statistical analysis revealed that number and rate of publication are reciprocal suppressor variables which were individually weaker predictors of years to promotion, but much more powerful when combined. Intuitively, this is probably because number and rate of publication contain information about other variables with: (1) number of publications being associated with more postgraduate experience, a smaller research group, and slower rates of publication; and (2) rate of publication being associated with a larger research group, and less postgraduate experience. Further, we found that promotion committees closely follow institutional tenure policy requiring promotion a fixed number of years after hiring as an assistant professor which may partially explain why promotion committees fail adjust the number and rate of publication for research group size as fairness in promotion might favor. Our results suggest that both postgraduate experience and research group size influence a professor's career.
| S-EPMC9604874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Collaboration plays an increasingly important role in promoting research productivity and impact. What remains unclear is whether female and male researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) disciplines differ in their collaboration propensity. Here, we report on an empirical analysis of the complete publication records of 3,980 faculty members in six STEM disciplines at select U.S. research universities. We find that female faculty have significantly fewer distinct co-authors over their careers than males, but that this difference can be fully accounted for by females' lower publication rate and shorter career lengths. Next, we find that female scientists have a lower probability of repeating previous co-authors than males, an intriguing result because prior research shows that teams involving new collaborations produce work with higher impact. Finally, we find evidence for gender segregation in some sub-disciplines in molecular biology, in particular in genomics where we find female faculty to be clearly under-represented.
| S-EPMC5096717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gender differences in achievement exhibit variation between domains and between countries. Much prior research has examined whether this variation could be due to variation in gender equality in opportunities, with mixed results. Here we focus instead on the role of a society's values about gender equality, which may have a more pervasive influence. We pooled all available country measures on adolescent boys' and girls' academic achievement between 2000 and 2015 from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessments of math, science, and reading. We then analyzed the relation between gender differences and country levels of gender egalitarian values, controlling for country levels of living standards and indicators of gender equality in opportunities. Gender egalitarian values came out as the most important predictor. Specifically, more gender egalitarian values were associated with improved performance of boys relative to girls in the same countries. This pattern held in reading, where boys globally perform substantially worse than girls, as well as in math and science where gender differences in performance are small and may favor either boys or girls. Our findings suggest a previously underappreciated role of cultural values in moderating gender gaps in academic achievement.
| S-EPMC7044344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Career preparation in residency training is not standardized. Scholarly tracks have emerged in emergency medicine (EM) residencies to allow specialized training in an area of focus. The characteristics of these tracks and their value and impact on resident career choice are unknown. We aim to describe the current state of scholarly tracks in residency training programs and their association with pursuit of an academic career.Program leaders at EM training programs completed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice items with free-text option. Additionally, participants completed a matrix of dropdown items identifying the immediately chosen post-residency position and applicable track of each member of their graduating class. Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported for multiple-choice items. We performed comparative statistics using chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Free-text responses were analyzed using a thematic approach.113/157(72%) programs participated, 51 with and 62 without tracks. Tracks were more common in four-year programs (odds ratio [OR]=4.8;[2.0-11.9]) and larger programs (chi-sq, p=0.001). Perceived benefits of tracks from programs with them included advanced training (46/50; 92%), career guidance (44/50; 88%), mentorship (44/50; 88%), and preparation for an academic career (40/50; 80%). Residents often participated in a single track (37/50; 74%) usually during their later residency years. Programs with tracks were more likely to graduate residents to an academic career, OR 1.8;[1.3-2.4].This study describes the current characteristics and perceptions of scholarly tracks in EM residencies. Scholarly tracks are associated with an academic position immediately following residency. The results of this study may inform the development and use of scholarly tracks in residency training programs.
| S-EPMC5942030 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 to assess men and women on a more equitable basis.
| S-EPMC1762413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic Medical Centers ("AMCs") have served as a hub of the United States ("US") health system and represented the state-of-the art in American health care for well over a century. Currently, the global healthcare market is both massive and expanding and is being altered by the unprecedented impact of technological advances and globalization. This provides AMCs a platform to enter into trans-national collaborative partnerships with healthcare organizations around the world, thus providing a means to deliver on its promise globally while also expanding and diversifying its resources. A number of leading US AMCs have engaged in global collaborative healthcare, employing different models based on services offered, global distribution, and inclination to assume risk. Engaging in these collaborations requires significant effort from across the health system, and an understanding of the resources required is paramount for effective delivery and to avoid overextension and diversion from the primary mission of these organizations. The goal of this paper is to discuss the role of US AMCs in this current global healthcare landscape and to also investigate our institutional faculty and staff resource requirements to support the operating model.We extracted and retrospectively analyzed data from the JHI Global Services database for a 3-year period (Jan, 2013-Dec, 2015) to determine total utilization (hours and full time equivalent (FTE)), utilization by profession, and clinical and non-clinical areas of expertise.JHI utilized on average 21,940 h annually, or 10.55 FTEs of faculty and staff subject matter experts. The majority of the hours are for work performed by physician faculty members from 23 departments within the School of Medicine, representing 77% percent or on average 16,894 h annually. Clinical and allied health departments had an average annual utilization of 17,642 h or 7.8 FTEs, while non-clinical departments, schools and institutes averaged 4298 h or 1.9 FTEs, representing 80.4% and 19.6% respectively.We found that significant human resources are required within a broad range of AMC subject matter expertise across multiple disciplines, and that with adequate forecasting AMCs can successfully engage in these collaborations while continuing to fulfill their core mission.
| S-EPMC5607605 | biostudies-other
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