On Thon's axiomatization of the Gini index

e16089 Background: There are substantial disparities in esophageal cancer mortality across different social groups, including sex, race/ethnicity, geographical location and socio-economic status. Methods: This is an ecological study with secondary data from 2016 to 2018 that evaluated the effects of income-inequality and number of doctors per inhabitant on esophageal cancer mortality in Brazil and its Federative Units. The amount of deaths and the overall number of doctors were obtained from the Department of Informatics of the Unified Health System. Mortality was estimated per 100,000 individuals and age-standardized through the World Health Organization’s population, whereas the rate of doctor per inhabitant was calculated per 1,000 inhabitants. Income-Inequality was measured by the Gini index, obtained from the United Nations Development Programme. Linear regression was performed by the stepwise backward method. Results: Sex, Gini index values and oncology surgeons were all related to lower mortality rates (p < 0.05), whereas clinical oncologists and general surgeons were both associated with higher mortality (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Esophageal cancer mortality rates were influenced by both the type and amount of doctors per inhabitant of any given administrative region in Brazil, however there was no association found with regards to income inequality.[Table: see text]

Get full-text (via PubEx)

The Contest for Olympic Success as a Public Good

Journal of Income Distribution ◽

10.25071/1874-6322.34371 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Loek Groot

Keyword(s):

Lorenz Curve ◽

Gini Index ◽

World Population ◽

Level Playing Field ◽

Actual Distribution ◽

Playing Field ◽

Inequality Measures ◽

The Rich ◽

The Lorenz Curve ◽

Rich Countries

In this study it is demonstrated that standard income inequality measures, such as the Lorenz curve and the Gini index, can successfully be applied to the distribution of Olympic success. Olympic success is distributed very unevenly, with the rich countries capturing a disproportionately higher share compared to their world population share, which suggests that the Olympic Games do not provide a level playing field. The actual distribution of Olympic success is compared with alternative hypothetical distributions, among which are chosen the distribution according to population shares, the welfare optimal distribution under the assumption of zero government expenditures, and the non-cooperating Nash-Cournot distribution. By way of conclusion, a device is proposed to make the distribution of Olympic success more equitable.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Changes in Income Distribution in Brazil

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190499983.013.24 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Rodolfo Hoffmann

Keyword(s):

Income Inequality ◽

Household Income ◽

Gini Index ◽

Military Coup ◽

Transfer Programs ◽

Per Capita ◽

The Government ◽

The Military ◽

The Impact ◽

Very High

Income inequality in Brazil, already high, increased after the military coup of 1964 and remained very high even after democratization in the 1980s. It decreased substantially in the period 2001–2014, after inflation was controlled. The Gini index of the per capita household income dropped from 0.594 in 2001 to 0.513 in 2014. The determinants of this decline in inequality are analyzed considering the components of that income and how each one affected changes in inequality, showing the impact of changes in the remuneration of private sector employees and in pensions paid by the government, as well as federal transfer programs. Changes in education lie behind the first of these effects, and the increase of the minimum wage reinforced all three. The economic crises after 2014 interrupted the process of decline, and among economically active persons, inequality even increased from 2014 to 2015. Measures to further reduce inequality are suggested.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

‘Nepotistic journals’: a survey of biomedical journals

10.1101/2021.02.03.429520 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alexandre Scanff ◽

Florian Naudet ◽

Ioana Cristea ◽

David Moher ◽

Dorothy V M Bishop ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Random Sample ◽

Gini Index ◽

Time Lag ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Prolific Author ◽

Editorial Bias ◽

Biomedical Journals ◽

Disproportionate Number ◽

Prolific Authors

AbstractContextConvergent analyses in different disciplines support the use of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) as a red flag to identify journals that can be suspected of questionable editorial practices. We examined whether this index, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using a large sample of biomedical journals.MethodsWe extracted metadata for all biomedical journals referenced in the National Library of Medicine, with any attributed Broad Subject Terms, and at least 50 authored (i.e. by at least one author) articles between 2015 and 2019, identifying the most prolific author (i.e. the person who signed the most papers in each particular journal). We calculated the PPMP and the 2015-2019 Gini index for the distribution of articles across authors. When the relevant information was reported, we also computed the median publication lag (time between submission and acceptance) for articles authored by any of the most prolific authors and that for articles not authored by prolific authors. For outlier journals, defined as a PPMP or Gini index above the 95th percentile of their respective distributions, a random sample of 100 journals was selected and described in relation to status on the editorial board for the most prolific author.Results5 468 journals that published 4 986 335 papers between 2015 and 2019 were analysed. The PPMP 95th percentile was 10.6% (median 2.9%). The Gini index 95th percentile was 0.355 (median 0.183). Correlation between the two indices was 0.35 (95CI 0.33 to 0.37). Information on publication lag was available for 2 743 journals. We found that 277 journals (10.2%) had a median time lag to publication for articles by the most prolific author(s) that was shorter than 3 weeks, versus 51 (1.9%) journals with articles not authored by prolific author(s). Among the random sample of outlier journals, 98 provided information about their editorial board. Among these 98, the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%), among whom 25 (26% of the 98) were editors-in-chief.DiscussionIn most journals publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. The papers by these authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Get full-text (via PubEx)