medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2021, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2021; 32 (3)

Sex and its relation to the academic impact on researchers in Latin America

Jhonnel AJ, Bendezu-Quispe G, Acevedo T, Arroyo-Hernández H

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 1-17
PDF size: 688.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Women are underrepresented in scientific production. Several studies show that women have less participation in the authorship of scientific articles. The objective of the present study was to determine if sex is associated with academic impact in researchers of Latin American countries. A comparison between the h-index and the number of citations was carried out. A bibliometric study was conducted with data from the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities page that periodically publishes rankings of researchers according to their profiles in Google Scholar. The first 150 positions from 12 Latin American countries were reviewed and the differences in academic impact according to sex were evaluated. Of a total 1 750 researchers, only 17.3% (303) were women. Of the 12 countries analyzed, the majority (8) did not present significant differences in academic impact by sex and only four presented these differences, although with a small effect size (r < 0.3). Less than one-fifth of the researchers considered in the sample were women; however, in most countries the academic impact of women was similar and in some cases greater than that of their male counterparts.


REFERENCES

  1. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013;504(7479):211-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a

  2. Casado-Mejía R, Botello-Hermosa A. Representatividad de las mujeres en las sociedades científicas españolas del ámbito de la salud en 2014. Gac Sanit. 2015;29(3):209-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.09.010

  3. García-Calvente MDM, Ruiz-Cantero MT, Del Río-Lozano M, Borrell C, López-Sancho MP. Desigualdades de género en la investigación en salud pública y epidemiología en España (2007-2014). Gac Sanit. 2015;29(6):404-11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.07.013

  4. Ding WW, Murray F, Stuart TE. Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science. 2006;313(5787):665-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1124832

  5. 5 . Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2410-17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.6183

  6. Masic I, Begic E. Scientometric Dilemma: Is H-index Adequate for Scientific Validity of Academic's Work? Acta Inform Med. 2016;24(4):228-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/aim.2016.24.228-232

  7. Saleem T. The Hirsch index - a play on numbers or a true appraisal of academic output? Int Arch Med. 2011;4:25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-4-25

  8. Symonds MRE, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA. Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One. 2006;1:e127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000127

  9. Mauleón E, Bordons M. Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics. 2006;66(1):199-218.

  10. Mueller C, Wright R, Girod S. The publication gender gap in US academic surgery. BMC Surg. 2017;17(1):16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0211-4

  11. Aoun SG, Bendok BR, Rahme RJ, Dacey RG, Batjer HH. Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery--critical review of the "h" index and its variants. World Neurosurg. 2013;80(5):e85-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2012.01.052

  12. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(46):16569-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

  13. Eloy JA, Svider P, Chandrasekhar SS, Husain Q, Mauro KM, Setzen M, et al. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(2):215-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0194599812466055

  14. Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT. Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2009;111(2):387-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.10.JNS08978

  15. Moed HF, Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. J Informetr. 2016;10(2):533-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017

  16. Andersen JP, Nielsen MW. Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines. J Informetr. 2018;12(3):950-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.010

  17. De Groote SL, Raszewski R. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nurs Outlook. 2012;60(6):391-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007

  18. 18 . Harzing AWK, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8:61-73.

  19. Mar RA. The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:103-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406

  20. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141(1):2-18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

  21. 21 . Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

  22. Gast KM, Kuzon WM, Adelman EE, Waljee JF. Influence of training institution on academic affiliation and productivity among plastic surgery faculty in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(3):570-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000476

  23. Hu J, Gholami A, Stone N, Bartoszko J, Thoma A. An evaluation of h-index as a measure of research productivity among Canadian Academic Plastic Surgeons. Plast Surg. 2018;26(1):5-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2292550317749508

  24. Ahmadi M, Khurshid K, Sanelli PC, Jalal S, Chahal T, Norbash A, et al. Influences for gender disparity in academic neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(1):18-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5443

  25. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA, Caprasecca A. Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics. 2009;79(3):517-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8

  26. Mauleón E, Bordons M, Oppenheim C. The effect of gender on research staff success in life sciences in the Spanish National Research Council. Res Eval. 2008;17(3):213-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X331676

  27. 27 . Fox MF. Gender, knowledge, and scientific styles. Ann New York Acad Sci. 1999;869(1):89-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08359.x

  28. van Arensbergen P, van der Weijden I, van den Besselaar P. Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics. 2012;93(3):857-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y

  29. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Cherla DV, Díaz L, Kovalerchik O, Mauro KM, et al. Gender disparities in research productivity among 9 952 academic physicians. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(8):1865-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24039

  30. Pashkova AA, Svider PF, Chang CY, Díaz L, Eloy JA, Eloy JD. Gender disparity among US anaesthesiologists: are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(8):1058-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12141

  31. Hyde JS. Gender similarities and differences. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:373-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057

  32. Memisevic H, Taljic I, Hadziomerovic AM. Making Use of H-index: the Shape of Science at the University of Sarajevo. Acta Inform Med. 2017;25(3):187-90. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5455%2Faim.2017.25.187-90

  33. 33 . Costas R, Bordons M. Una visión crítica del índice h: algunas consideraciones derivadas de su aplicación práctica. El Profesional de la Informacion. 2007;16(5):427-32.

  34. 34 . Costas R, Bordons M. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetr. 2007;1(3):193-203. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com