Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Soderlund T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5502066 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:This data aimed to audit the dental sciences related articles published in Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences (IJBMS) from 2007 to 2015 over a 9 year period performed using web-based search. The data were analyzed for topic of dental sciences, type of article, international collaborations, source of funding, number of authors and authorship trends. Out of the total 18 data related to dental sciences, original articles (12), review articles (4) and short communications (2) contribute the major share. Regarding the relationship with dental sciences, the maximum number of data were related to oral pathology and microbiology (16) followed by oral medicine and radiology (7) and periodontics (7). Among the data related to dental sciences, oral cancer (3) and gingival and periodontal diseases (3) followed by dental plaque and caries (2) and orthodontic tooth movement (2) form the major attraction of the contributors. The largest numbers of data related to dental sciences were received from Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad (4) and Tehran University of Medical Sciences,Tehran (2).The present data were compared with previous bibliometric studies done related to dental sciences (Shamim et al., 2017a, 2017b).
| S-EPMC5988423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This data article presents a corpus (i.e. a selection of a big number of words in an electronic form) and a concordancer (i.e. a tool to show the word in its context of use) of academic journal articles. As the title suggests, the data were collected from research articles published in academic journals. The corpus contains 5,686,428 words selected from 895 journal articles published by Elsevier in 2011-2015. The corpus is classified into four subject areas: Health sciences, Life sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences, following the classifications of Scopus, which is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. To ease the access and utilization of the corpus, a program to produce the key word in context (KWIC) and word frequency was created and placed on the website: corpus.kwary.net. The corpus is a valuable resource for researchers, teachers, and translators working on academic English.
| S-EPMC5694964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWomen are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresPrimary and senior authors' genders.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of citations per article.ResultsAmong 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.
| S-EPMC8254129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study compares publication pattern dynamics in the social sciences and humanities in five European countries. Three are Central and Eastern European countries that share a similar cultural and political heritage (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland). The other two are Flanders (Belgium) and Norway, representing Western Europe and the Nordics, respectively. We analysed 449,409 publications from 2013-2016 and found that, despite persisting differences between the two groups of countries across all disciplines, publication patterns in the Central and Eastern European countries are becoming more similar to those in their Western and Nordic counterparts. Articles from the Central and Eastern European countries are increasingly published in journals indexed in Web of Science and also in journals with the highest citation impacts. There are, however, clear differences between social science and humanities disciplines, which need to be considered in research evaluation and science policy.
| S-EPMC8031415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A barrier to dissemination of research is that it depends on the end-user searching for or 'pulling' relevant knowledge from the literature base. Social media instead 'pushes' relevant knowledge straight to the end-user, via blogs and sites such as Facebook and Twitter. That social media is very effective at improving dissemination seems well accepted, but, remarkably, there is no evidence to support this claim. We aimed to quantify the impact of social media release on views and downloads of articles in the clinical pain sciences. Sixteen PLOS ONE articles were blogged and released via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and ResearchBlogging.org on one of two randomly selected dates. The other date served as a control. The primary outcomes were the rate of HTML views and PDF downloads of the article, over a seven-day period. The critical result was an increase in both outcome variables in the week after the blog post and social media release. The mean ± SD rate of HTML views in the week after the social media release was 18±18 per day, whereas the rate during the other three weeks was no more than 6±3 per day. The mean ± SD rate of PDF downloads in the week after the social media release was 4±4 per day, whereas the rate during the other three weeks was less than 1±1 per day (p<0.05 for all comparisons). However, none of the recognized measures of social media reach, engagement or virality related to either outcome variable, nor to citation count one year later (p>0.3 for all). We conclude that social media release of a research article in the clinical pain sciences increases the number of people who view or download that article, but conventional social media metrics are unrelated to the effect.
| S-EPMC3714259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The fairness of decisions made at various stages of the publication process is an important topic in meta-research. Here, based on an analysis of data on the gender of authors, editors and reviewers for 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions to the journal eLife, we report on five stages of the publication process. We find that the board of reviewing editors (BRE) is men-dominant (69%) and that authors disproportionately suggest male editors when making an initial submission. We do not find evidence for gender bias when Senior Editors consult Reviewing Editors about initial submissions, but women Reviewing Editors are less engaged in discussions about these submissions than expected by their proportion. We find evidence of gender homophily when Senior Editors assign full submissions to Reviewing Editors (i.e., men are more likely to assign full submissions to other men (77% compared to the base assignment rate to men RE of 70%), and likewise for women (41% compared to women RE base assignment rate of 30%))). This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. However, we do not find evidence for gender bias when authors appeal decisions made by editors to reject submissions. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias. Measures accounting for women's circumstances and needs (e.g., delaying discussions until all RE are engaged) and raising editorial awareness to women's needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication.
| S-EPMC10712860 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10410472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A recent study by Higgins and colleagues reports that the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) had the highest percentage of articles with both librarian and faculty coauthors out of 13 peer-reviewed journals in science, technology, engineering, and medicine librarianship and education between 2005 and 2014. A deeper and updated analysis of JMLA research articles and case studies published between 2008 and 2017 revealed that 29% of articles had both librarian and faculty coauthors. The main topics of librarian-faculty collaboration, as described in these articles, were related to patient and consumer health information and clinical information-seeking and decision-making by health care providers. Most faculty coauthors came from the disciplines of biomedical or health informatics and biostatistics and library and information science. The publication of these articles in the JMLA provides evidence of health sciences librarians' and information specialists' ability to collaborate with faculty members to advance the knowledgebase and practice of librarianship and the health sciences.
| S-EPMC6148599 | biostudies-other
Project description:Enthusiasm for using Twitter as a source of data in the social sciences extends to measuring the impact of research with Twitter data being a key component in the new altmetrics approach. In this paper, we examine tweets containing links to research articles in the field of dentistry to assess the extent to which tweeting about scientific papers signifies engagement with, attention to, or consumption of scientific literature. The main goal is to better comprehend the role Twitter plays in scholarly communication and the potential value of tweet counts as traces of broader engagement with scientific literature. In particular, the pattern of tweeting to the top ten most tweeted scientific dental articles and of tweeting by accounts is examined. The ideal that tweeting about scholarly articles represents curating and informing about state-of-the-art appears not to be realized in practice. We see much presumably human tweeting almost entirely mechanical and devoid of original thought, no evidence of conversation, tweets generated by monomania, duplicate tweeting from many accounts under centralized professional management and tweets generated by bots. Some accounts exemplify the ideal, but they represent less than 10% of tweets. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from twitter data is swamped by the mechanical nature of the bulk of tweeting behavior. In light of these results, we discuss the compatibility of Twitter with the research enterprise as well as some of the financial incentives behind these patterns.
| S-EPMC5570264 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveResearch on publication trends in journal articles on sleep disorders (SDs) and the associated methodologies by using text mining has been limited. The present study involved text mining for terms to determine the publication trends in sleep-related journal articles published during 2000-2013 and to identify associations between SD and methodology terms as well as conducting statistical analyses of the text mining findings.MethodsSD and methodology terms were extracted from 3,720 sleep-related journal articles in the PubMed database by using MetaMap. The extracted data set was analyzed using hierarchical cluster analyses and adjusted logistic regression models to investigate publication trends and associations between SD and methodology terms.ResultsMetaMap had a text mining precision, recall, and false positive rate of 0.70, 0.77, and 11.51%, respectively. The most common SD term was breathing-related sleep disorder, whereas narcolepsy was the least common. Cluster analyses showed similar methodology clusters for each SD term, except narcolepsy. The logistic regression models showed an increasing prevalence of insomnia, parasomnia, and other sleep disorders but a decreasing prevalence of breathing-related sleep disorder during 2000-2013. Different SD terms were positively associated with different methodology terms regarding research design terms, measure terms, and analysis terms.ConclusionInsomnia-, parasomnia-, and other sleep disorder-related articles showed an increasing publication trend, whereas those related to breathing-related sleep disorder showed a decreasing trend. Furthermore, experimental studies more commonly focused on hypersomnia and other SDs and less commonly on insomnia, breathing-related sleep disorder, narcolepsy, and parasomnia. Thus, text mining may facilitate the exploration of the publication trends in SDs and the associated methodologies.
| S-EPMC4874549 | biostudies-literature