Dataset Information

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet.

ABSTRACT: Background: Sweden is viewed as an egalitarian country, still most of the professors are Swedish and only 25% are women. Research competence is evaluated using peer review, which is regarded as an objective measure in the meritocracy system. Here we update the investigation by Wold & Wennerås (1997) on women researcher's success rate for obtaining a faculty position, by examining factors (gender, nationality, productivity, etc.) in applications for an Assistant Professorship in 2014 at Karolinska Institutet. Methods: Fifty-six applications, 26 Swedish and 21 women applicants, were scored both on merits and projects by six external reviewers. Additional variables, including grants and academic age, calculated as the number of years since PhD excluding parental or sick leave, were gathered. Productivity was assessed by calculating a composite bibliometric score based on six factors (citations, publications, first/last authorships, H-index, high impact publication). Results: Overall, academic age was negatively correlated with scores on merits, as assessed by peer review, although not reaching statistical significance. In men, associations between scores on merits and productivity ( P-value=0.0004), as well as having received grants ( P-value=0.009) were seen. No associations were found for women. Moreover, applicants with a background from the Middle East were un-proportionally found in the lowest quartile (Fisher exact test P-value=0.007). Conclusions: In summary, the gender inequality shown in peer review processes in Sweden 20 years ago still exists. Furthermore, a bias for ethnicity was found. In order to keep the best scientific competence in academia, more efforts are needed to avoid selection bias in assessments to enable equal evaluations of all researchers.

SUBMITTER: Holst S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6092899 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Selective publication and reporting in individual papers compromise the scientific record, but are meta-analyses as compromised as their constituent studies? We systematically sampled 63 meta-analyses (each comprising at least 40 studies) in PLoS One, top medical journals, top psychology journals, and Metalab, an online, open-data database of developmental psychology meta-analyses. We empirically estimated publication bias in each, including only the peer-reviewed studies. Across all meta-analyses, we estimated that "statistically significant" results in the expected direction were only 1.17 times more likely to be published than "nonsignificant" results or those in the unexpected direction (95% CI: [0.93, 1.47]), with a confidence interval substantially overlapping the null. Comparable estimates were 0.83 for meta-analyses in PLoS One, 1.02 for top medical journals, 1.54 for top psychology journals, and 4.70 for Metalab. The severity of publication bias did differ across individual meta-analyses; in a small minority (10%; 95% CI: [2%, 21%]), publication bias appeared to favor "significant" results in the expected direction by more than threefold. We estimated that for 89% of meta-analyses, the amount of publication bias that would be required to attenuate the point estimate to the null exceeded the amount of publication bias estimated to be actually present in the vast majority of meta-analyses from the relevant scientific discipline (exceeding the 95th percentile of publication bias). Study-level measures ("statistical significance" with a point estimate in the expected direction and point estimate size) did not indicate more publication bias in higher-tier versus lower-tier journals, nor in the earliest studies published on a topic versus later studies. Overall, we conclude that the mere act of performing a meta-analysis with a large number of studies (at least 40) and that includes non-headline results may largely mitigate publication bias in meta-analyses, suggesting optimism about the validity of meta-analytic results.

Project description:BackgroundTransgender community is marginalized and under-researched. Analysis of peer-reviewed literature in transgender health is needed to better understand health needs and human rights of transgender people. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze global research activity in transgender health published in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsPeer-reviewed documents in transgender health were retrieved using Scopus database. VOSviewer was used to map frequently encountered author keywords while ArcGIS 10.1 was used to map the geographical distribution of the retrieved documents. Most active countries, institutions, and authors were presented. The study period was set from 1900 to 2017.ResultsIn total, 5772 peer-reviewed documents were obtained. English (5008; 86.8%) was the most frequently encountered language. A dramatic increase in the number of publications was seen in the last decade. The retrieved documents had an average of 12.1 citations per document and h-index of 92. Most frequently encountered author keywords were Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), mental health, and discrimination. Authors from 80 different countries contributed to publishing the retrieved documents. Publications originated mainly from Northern America, certain European countries, Australia, and Brazil. Professor Gooren, L.J.G. was the most active author in this field with 104 (1.88%) publications. Top active authors were in the fields of endocrinology, plastic surgery, psychiatry/psychology, public health, and sexology. Five of the top ten active authors were from the USA, three were from the Netherlands, and two were from Belgium. The most active institution was the VU University Medical Center (Netherlands) (184; 3.2%) followed by the University of California, San Francisco (USA) (157; 2.7%). The International Journal of Transgenderism was most active (284; 4.9%) in publishing articles in transgender health. However, documents published in the American Journal of Public Health had the highest impact with 53.5 citations per article.ConclusionThere was a noticeable growth of research in transgender health in the last decade. Researchers from different world regions need to get involved in health and human rights research of transgender community.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial registries are intended to increase clinical research transparency by nonselectively identifying and documenting clinical trial designs and outcomes. Inconsistencies in reported data undermine the utility of such registries and have previously been noted in general medical literature.ObjectiveTo assess whether inconsistencies in reported data exist between ophthalmic literature and clinical trial registries.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, interventional clinical trials published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology were reviewed. Observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, and post hoc reports were excluded, yielding a sample size of 106 articles. Data collection was performed from January through September 2016. Data review and adjudication continued through January 2017.Main outcomes and measuresIf possible, articles were matched to registry entries listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database or in 1 of 16 international registries indexed by the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform version 3.2 search engine. Each article-registry pair was assessed for inconsistencies in design, results, and funding (each of which was further divided into subcategories) by 2 reviewers and adjudicated by a third.ResultsOf 106 trials that met the study criteria, matching registry entries were found for 68 (64.2%), whereas no matching registry entries were found for 38 (35.8%). Inconsistencies were identified in study design, study results, and funding sources, including specific interventions in 8 (11.8%), primary outcome measure (POM) designs in 32 (47.1%), and POM results in 48 (70.6%). In addition, numerous data pieces were unreported, including analysis methods in 52 (76.5%) and POM results in 38 (55.9%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trial registries were underused in this sample of ophthalmology clinical trials. For studies with registry data, inconsistency rates between published and registered data were similar to those previously reported for general medical literature. In most cases, inconsistencies involved missing data, but explicit discrepancies in methods and/or data were also found. Transparency and credibility of published trials may be improved by closer attention to their registration and reporting.

Dataset Information

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets