Dataset Information

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES:Titles and abstracts from 101?720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as "novel" or "excellent." For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS:Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS:Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

SUBMITTER: Lerchenmueller MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7190066 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study.

Lerchenmueller Marc J MJ Sorenson Olav O Jena Anupam B AB

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20191216

<h4>Objectives</h4>Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 31843745

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a remarkable lack of detailed knowledge on pain areas in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), and their clinical relevance is largely unknown. Pain area may reflect local disease processes, but amplification of nervous system signalling may alter this relationship. Also, gender differences in pain area may exist in axSpA, possibly confounding disease activity outcomes. Therefore, we firstly detailed pain locations in axSpA and evaluated gender differences. Secondly, we explored the relationship of regional pain definitions with clinical outcomes. Finally, we explored the role of pain area in the assessment of disease activity. METHODS:Body charts informed on the presence of axial, peripheral articular and non-articular pain in 170 patients (108 men, 62 women) with axSpA. Multivariate Odds Ratios (ORs) were used to compare genders. General linear models were used to explore clinical differences in disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), activity limitations (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia 11-item version [TSK-11]), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale anxiety [HADS-A]) and depression (HADS subscale depression [HADS-D]) between four subgroups classified by widespread non-articular pain (WNAP+/-) and physician global assessment of disease activity (PGDA+/-) (p?<?.05). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed to explore gender differences in the structure of disease activity. RESULTS:Axial thoracic pain was least prevalent (lumbar, 74.4%; cervical, 47.6%; cervicothoracic, 47.6%; thoracic, 32.4%), but it was about three times more likely in women (OR, 2.92; p?=?.009). Axial cervicothoracic junction pain spread more diffusely in women (OR, 2.48; p?=?.018). Women exhibited a two- to threefold increased likelihood of widespread axial (OR, 3.33; p?=?.007) and peripheral articular (OR, 2.34; p?=?.023) pain. A subgroup of WNAP+/PGDA- combined with low PGDA (27% of all patients) was associated with worse BASFI, BASDAI, HADS-A and HADS-D in men and worse TSK-11 and HADS-A in women (p?<?.05). Disease activity outcomes showed a two-factor structure in women but not in men. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with axSpA, the location and spread of pain was different between genders and was related to worse clinical status. On the basis of pain area and PGDA, clinical subgroups exhibiting a remarkably distinct health status were identified. Outcome instruments such as BASDAI should acknowledge gender differences to ensure structural validity.

Project description:BackgroundBeyond the degree of adiposity, the pattern of fat distribution has a profound influence on cardiometabolic risk. It is unclear if sex differences in body fat distribution can potentially explain any sex differences in the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and in individual cardiometabolic risk factors among obese men and women.MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, 432 persons from the ongoing Obesity Weight Reduction Study (n = 356 obese, ØBMI 41 ± 8 kg/m2, and 76 non-obese, ØBMI 25 ± 3 kg/m2), were included. The relations of sex to MetS prevalence and selected cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed using univariate and multivariate adjusted regression models.ResultsIn crude analyses, %fat mass and the fat mass/lean mass ratio were significantly higher in women than in men, regardless of increasing obesity categories, from normal weight to grade-3-obesity. In contrast, markers of abdominal obesity, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio were higher in men than in women, despite similar BMI. The prevalence of the MetS was higher in obese men than in women (67.6 vs. 45.0%, p < 0.0001), particularly in younger individuals < 40 years (72.5 vs. 36.8%, p < 0.0001), but "metabolically healthy obesity" (BMI ≥ 30, no other NCEP ATPIII MetS component) was more common in women than in men (15.6 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, %body fat and height, sex differences were observed for HDL-cholesterol (p < 0.001), triglycerides (p < 0.001), fasting glucose (p = 0.002), insulin and HOMA-IR levels (p < 0.001), ALAT (p < 0.001), adiponectin (p < 0.001), and sE-selectin (p = 0.005). In contrast, crude sex differences in other variables, such as leptin levels (68 ± 4 in obese women vs. 33 ± 2 µg/L in men, p < 0.0001), disappeared after accounting for differences in %body fat (least-squares means of leptin: 52 ± 4 vs. 55 ± 6 µg /L, p = 0.740). A logistic regression model adjusting for age and lifestyle factors revealed a lower risk of having MetS for women as compared to men (OR = 0.38[0.22-0.60]). That risk estimate did not materially alter after adding BMI to the model. In contrast, no statistically significant association between sex and MetS prevalence was observed after adding waist circumference and adiponectin to the model (OR = 1.41[0.59-3.36]).ConclusionsDifferent body fat distribution patterns, particularly abdominal adiposity, adiponectin, and related biomarkers, may contribute to sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and to the prevalence of the MetS.

Project description:BackgroundGender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results.ResultsA total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases.ConclusionsOur findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics.

Dataset Information

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study.

Publications

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets