scholarly journals Gender disparity within academic Canadian urology

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julius Ilin ◽  
Emilie Langlois ◽  
Sabeena Jalal ◽  
Faisal Khosa
Keyword(s):  
Gender Disparity ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
H Index ◽  
Academic Faculty ◽  
Insignificant Difference ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Rank Differences ◽  
Academic Positions ◽  
Temporal Bias

Introduction: Increasing female matriculation into medical school has shown an increase in women training in academic urology, but gender disparity still exists within this male-dominated field. This study aims to evaluate publication productivity and rank differences of Canadian female and male academic urologists. Methods: The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) was used to compile a list of 12 Canadian accredited urology programs. Using each institution’s website, faculty members’ names, genders, academic positions, and leadership ranks were noted. SCOPUS© was consulted to tabulate the number of documents published, citations, and h-index of each faculty member. To account for temporal bias associated with the h-index, the m-quotient was also computed. Results: There was a significantly higher number of men (164, 88.17%) among academic faculty than women (22, 11.83%). As academic rank increased, the proportion of female urologists decreased. Overall, male urologists had higher academic ranks, h-index values, number of publications, and citations (p=0.038, p=0.0038, p=0.0011, and p=0.014, respectively). There was an insignificant difference between men and women with respect to their m-quotient medians (p=0.25). Conclusions: There is an increasing number of women completing residency in urology, although there are disproportionally fewer female urologists at senior academic positions. Significant differences were found in the h-index, publication count, and citation number between male and female urologists. When using the m-quotient to adjust for temporal bias, no significant differences were found between the gender in terms of academic output.

Gender differences in the Israeli academia: a bibliometric analysis of different disciplines

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzipi Cooper ◽  
Noa Aharony ◽  
Judit Bar-Ilan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Women In Academia ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Underrepresentation Of Women ◽  
Number Of Publications

PurposeThis study explores faculty members' outputs and citations by gender and academic rank in Israeli academia. The study focuses on the connection between research productivity and underrepresentation of women in academia. To this end, four fields were chosen, each representing a different discipline: Psychology (social sciences), Public Health (health sciences), Linguistics (humanities), and Chemistry (Exact sciences).Design/methodology/approachThe name, the rank and the gender of the researchers were collected from the researchers' websites and those of their departments. The number of publications and citations were retrieved from Scopus.FindingsFindings revealed that there is a significant difference between the median number of men and women in Chemistry concerning publications and citations and in Psychology concerning citations. Moreover, in all four disciplines, females' average number of publications was lower than that of males', and that in three out of the four disciplines (Psychology, Public Health and Chemistry), men published more in top journals (the top 5%) than females, while the reverse was true of Linguistics. Furthermore, in three disciplines (Public Health, Linguistics and Chemistry), there is an increase in the average citations per female researchers between 2015 and 2019. Further, in all disciplines, women collaborated more than men.Originality/valueAs only a few studies in Israel have explored faculty members' outputs and citations, this study contributes and enlarges the Israeli research concerning this topic.

Academic Productivity in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgeons: Identifying Benchmarks Associated With Rank in North America

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482096628
Author(s):  
Kelly J. Lafaro ◽  
Amit S. Khithani ◽  
Paul Wong ◽  
Christopher J. LaRocca ◽  
Susanne G. Warner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
H Index ◽  
History Of ◽  
Fellowship Council ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Promotion Process ◽  
Nih Funding

Background Academic achievement is an integral part of the promotion process; however, there are no standardized metrics for faculty or leadership to reference in assessing this potential for promotion. The aim of this study was to identify metrics that correlate with academic rank in hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeons. Materials and Methods Faculty was identified from 17 fellowship council accredited HPB surgery fellowships in the United States and Canada. The number of publications, citations, h-index values, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each faculty member was captured. Results Of 111 surgeons identified, there were 31 (27%) assistant, 39 (35%) associate, and 41 (36%) full professors. On univariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were significantly associated with a surgeon’s academic rank ( P < .05). Years in practice and h-index remained significant on multivariate analysis ( P < .001). Discussion Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank.

scholarly journals Gender Differences in Research Productivity among Academic Psychiatrists in Canada

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Chauvin ◽  
Benoit H. Mulsant ◽  
Sanjeev Sockalingam ◽  
Vicky Stergiopoulos ◽  
Valerie H. Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications

Objectives: Gender 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. Methods: In 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. Results: Women (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). Conclusions: Gender 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.

Gender disparities in academic rank achievement in neurosurgery: a critical assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 133 (6) ◽  
pp. 1922-1927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rimal H. Dossani ◽  
Danielle Terrell ◽  
Jennifer A. Kosty ◽  
Robert C. Ross ◽  
Audrey Demand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression Model ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Full Professorship ◽  
Facility Level ◽  
Number Of Publications

OBJECTIVEThe objective of this study was to evaluate whether there are disparities in academic rank and promotion between men and women neurosurgeons.METHODSThe profiles of faculty members from 50 academic neurosurgery programs were reviewed to identify years in practice, number of PubMed-indexed publications, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) attainment, and academic rank. The number of publications at each academic rank was compared between men and women after controlling for years in practice by using a negative binomial regression model. The relationship between gender and each academic rank was also determined after controlling for clustering at the institutional level, years in practice, and number of publications.RESULTSOf 841 faculty members identified, 761 (90%) were men (p = 0.0001). Women represented 12% of the assistant and associate professors but only 4% of the full professors. Men and women did not differ in terms of the percentage holding a PhD, years in practice, or number of publications at any academic rank. After controlling for years in practice and clustering at the facility level, the authors found that men were twice as likely as women to be named full professor (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.09–4.44, p = 0.03). However, when institution, years in practice, PhD attainment, h-index, and number of publications were considered, men and women were equally likely to attain full professorship (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.42–1.93).CONCLUSIONSData analysis of the top neurosurgery programs suggests that although there are fewer women than men holding positions in academic neurosurgery, faculty rank attainment does not seem to be influenced by gender.

scholarly journals RESEARCH COLLABORATION WITHIN A DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS: A SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF COAUTHORSHIP PATTERNS

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. e58-e58
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Howden ◽  
Mark Duffet ◽  
Grace Xu ◽  
Anthony Chan
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Network Analysis ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Faculty Member ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Social ◽  
Number Of Publications

Abstract BACKGROUND Research is a collaborative undertaking. Through collaborators, researchers have access to expertise, experience, and resources which may result in increased research productivity. Social network analysis is a set of techniques that focuses primarily on the patterns and characteristics of relationships among individuals. OBJECTIVES To describe the social network structure —the extent and patterns of collaboration among members — of a department of paediatrics and identify prominent individuals and divisions. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a social network analysis of coauthorship. We included faculty members in a single department of paediatrics with at least 1 publication. We excluded those with a clinical appointment. We used PubMed to identify publications and Web of Science to obtain the total citations for each publication. RESULTS We included 99 faculty who authored 3 939 publications. The median (Q1, Q3) number of publications per faculty member was 12 (5, 39), ranging from 1 to 478. 83 (80%) of the faculty have coauthored a publication with another faculty member; the median (Q1, Q3) number of collaborators per faculty member was 3 (2, 8) and ranged from 0 to 21. 450 (11%) of publications included more than one faculty member as a coauthor. In the network diagram, 80 (81%) of faculty members were connected by coauthorship to a single large cluster. Neither the number of publications (increase in odds 1.0, 95% CI 1.0–1.1; p = 0.16) or h-index (increase in odds 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0; p = 0.74) was associated with increased odds of a faculty member collaborating with another faculty member. Factors associated with increased odds of any two faculty members collaborating were: being from the same division (increase in odds 5.0, 95% CI 3.9–6.3; p<0.001) and both coauthoring a publication with a common faculty member (increase in odds 4.8, 95% CI 3.8–6.2; p<0.001). Being of different genders or differences in number of publications or h-index was not associated with changes in the odds of collaboration. CONCLUSION Social network analysis of coauthorship can provide insight into the social structure and research collaboration of an academic department. This structure should be considered in efforts to improve collaboration and research productivity.

scholarly journals Variability in research productivity among Canadian surgical specialties

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. E76-E83
Author(s):  
Henry Wang ◽  
Michael W.A. Chu ◽  
Luc Dubois
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Surgery ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Graduate Degree ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Academic Surgeons

Background: Academic productivity, as measured by number and impact of publications, is central to the career advancement and promotion of academic surgeons. We compared research productivity metrics among specialties and sought factors associated with increased productivity. Methods: Academic surgeons were identified through departmental webpages and their scholarly metrics were collected through Scopus in a standardized fashion. We collected total number of documents, h-index, and average number of publications per year in the preceding 5 years. We explored whether presence of a training program, graduate degree, academic rank and size of the clinical group affected productivity metrics. Linear regression was used for multivariable analysis. Results: We collected data on 2172 surgeons from 15 separate academic centres across Canada. Wide variability existed in metrics among specialties, with cardiac and neurosurgery being the most productive, and vascular surgery and plastic surgery being the least productive. The average number of publications was 71, and the average h-index was 18.7. The average h-index for cardiac surgery was 25.7 compared with 8.3 for vascular surgery (p < 0.001). Our multivariable model identified academic rank, surgical specialty, graduate degree, presence of a training program, and larger clinical group as being associated with increased academic productivity. Conclusion: There is variability in research productivity among Canadian surgical specialties. Cardiac surgery and neurosurgery are productive, whereas vascular surgery and plastic surgery are less productive than other surgical disciplines. Obtaining a research-oriented graduate degree, being part of a larger clinical group, and presence of a training program were all associated with higher productivity, even after adjusting for academic rank and specialty.

The Beginning of the End

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Khoshpouri ◽  
Rayeheh Bahar ◽  
Pegah Khoshpouri ◽  
Amitis Ebrahimi ◽  
Omid Ghahramani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
H Index ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Male Faculty

Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between gender, research productivity, academic rank, and departmental leadership positions of pathology faculty in North America. Methods The online information presented for the faculty members in all American- and Canadian-accredited pathology residency programs’ official websites and Elsevier’s SCOPUS were queried to assess research productivity, academic ranks, and leadership positions. Results Among 5,228 academic pathologists included in our study, there were 3,122 (59.7%) males and 2,106 (40.3%) females. Male faculty held higher academic ranks (being professor) and leadership positions (chair/program director) (P &lt; .0001). Males were more likely to hold combined MD-PhD degrees (P &lt; .0001) than females. The median h-index for the male faculty was 17 vs 9 for the female faculty (P = .023). Conclusions Gender has a significant influence on leadership positions, academic ranks, and research productivity among pathology faculty members in North America.

scholarly journals Foot and Ankle Fellowship Faculty Research Productivity

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0028
Author(s):  
Ansab M. Khwaja ◽  
Nathaniel Bridge ◽  
Nathan Sherman ◽  
Peter Z. Du
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Productivity ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
H Index ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Fellowship Programs ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Program Characteristics ◽  
Number Of Publications

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Academic productivity within orthopaedic subspecialties is important in developing generalizable knowledge, challenging biases, and evolving practice management. Productivity is linked to academic status and can affect compensation. This study evaluated the research activity of faculty at foot and ankle surgery fellowship programs in the United States and associated Canadian programs. The primary objective was to describe the publishing productivity of American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) fellowship faculty. Methods: Program characteristics from orthopaedic foot and ankle fellowship programs across the United States and Canada were collected from AOFAS and each program’s respective websites. The studied faculty characteristics consisted of years in practice, academic rank, extent of training, and gender. Specific program characteristics were recorded, including Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education approval, academic affiliation, fellow research requirement, number of fellows, number of associated faculty members. Data analysis of faculty productivity (Publications, number of publications in specific journals, number of citations, and Hirsch index [h index]) was gathered using the Scopus database. Results: A total of 48 AOFAS foot and ankle surgery fellowship programs were identified with an associated 185 faculty members. The mean number of publications per faculty member was 44.9 (sd 53.0; range 0-323) with a mean h-index of 11.9 (sd 10.6; range 0-54). One-hundred and forty-four (77.8%) academic-affiliated faculty had a significantly greater number of publications (p<0.01), total citations (p<0.05), and publications in FAI (p<0.05), JBJS (p<0.05), CORR (p<0.05), and JAAOS (p<0.05) compared to the 41 (22.2%) nonacademic faculty. Nonacademic faculty maintained a h-index of 9.5 (95% CI 7-12), while academic faculty had a h-index of 12.6 (95% CI 11-14), which did not meet statistical significance (p=0.062). There were no significant differences between measures of publication productivity in male and female faculty, except for maximum citations in a single paper (67.1 vs 142.3; p<0.05) Conclusion: Academic-affiliated foot and ankle fellowship faculty have higher research productivity than non-academic surgeons. The mean h-index of foot and ankle fellowship faculty was 11.9, which is lower than that reported in sports, joints, and spine fellowship faculty but higher than that reported for hand fellowship faculty. The analyses presented can aid foot and ankle surgeons in assessing their academic productivity. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Effect of Personal and Occupational Characteristics on Attitudes to an Obligatory Retirement Age—A Content Analysis Investigation

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Eyal Eckhaus ◽  
Nitza Davidovitch
Keyword(s):  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Retirement Age ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Statistical Research ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Academic Administration ◽  
Occupational Characteristics ◽  
Academic Faculty

This study is a pioneer study examining the effects of personal and occupational background variables on the attitude of faculty members to an obligatory retirement age in academia. Previous studies on performance measures of academic faculty in research, teaching, academic administration, and contribution to the community, testified to associations between faculty member achievements and their personal characteristics (gender, age) as well as features related to their academic field of occupation (faculty, academic rank, tenure). Hence, these quality measures of academic faculty have meaning for and influence on research, even after the customary retirement age. Obligatory retirement age is a well-known issue and it is arousing much interest in general, and in academia in particular. Academic work includes activity focused on research, teaching, advisory work, participation in academic committees and conferences&mdash;namely, activities that require human thinking. This leads to the question of whether and to what degree personal and occupational characteristics are associated with the attitude of faculty members to retirement age. One hundred and eight questionnaires administered to senior faculty were collected in a case study of a single university. Qualitative and statistical research tools were employed, with the aim of creating a model that expresses the association between faculty members&rsquo; personal and occupational characteristics and their attitude to retirement age in academia. The research findings show that the background variables affecting the attitude of faculty members to retirement are age and tenure&mdash;faculty members&rsquo; age and status as tenured faculty determine their objection to the obligatory retirement age.

Scholarly Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Grant Recipients

2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Pagel ◽  
Judith A. Hudetz
Keyword(s):  
Citation Rate ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Full Time ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scholarly Output ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Anesthesia Education

Abstract Background: The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) grant program provides fellows and junior faculty members with grant support to stimulate their careers. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of recipients of FAER grants since 1987. Methods: Recipients were identified in the FAER alumni database. Each recipient’s affiliation was identified using an Internet search (keyword “anesthesiology”). The duration of activity, publications, publication rate, citations, citation rate, h-index, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each recipient were obtained using the Scopus® (Elsevier, USA) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools® (National Institutes of Health, USA) databases. Results: Three hundred ninety-seven individuals who received 430 FAER grants were analyzed, 79.1% of whom currently hold full-time academic appointments. Recipients published 19,647 papers with 548,563 citations and received 391 NIH grants totaling $448.44 million. Publications, citations, h-index, the number of NIH grants, and amount of support were dependent on academic rank and years of activity (P &lt; 0.0001). Recipients who acquired NIH grants (40.3%) had greater scholarly output than those who did not. Recipients with more publications were also more likely to secure NIH grants. Women had fewer publications and lower h-index than men, but there were no gender-based differences in NIH funding. Scholarly output was similar in recipients with MD and PhD degrees versus those with MD degrees alone, but recipients with MD and PhD degrees were more likely to receive NIH funding than those with MDs alone. Conclusion: Most FAER alumni remain in academic anesthesiology and have established a consistent record of scholarly output that appears to exceed reported productivity for average faculty members identified in previous studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document