Der Gendergap in der medizinischen Spitzenforschung Eine szientometrische Analyse zur Repräsentation weiblicher Autoren in hochrangigen medizinischen Journalen The gender gap in highest quality medical research A scientometric analysis of the representation of female authors in highest impact medica
Der Gendergap in der medizinischen Spitzenforschung Eine szientometrische Analyse zur Repräsentation weiblicher Autoren in hochrangigen medizinischen Journalen The gender gap in highest quality medical research A scientometric analysis of the representation of female authors in highest impact medica
复制标题
最高质量医学研究中的性别差距对最具影响力医学中女性作者代表性的科学计量分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Groneberg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Bendels;E. Wanke;Steffen Benik;M. Schehadat;N. Schöffel;J. Bauer;A. Gerber;D. Brüggmann;G. Oremek;D. Groneberg
目的通过分析2008年1月至2017年9月高影响力医学研究中女性作者的代表性，了解高影响力医学研究中的性别平等状况。方法对7种高影响力医学期刊的133 893篇男女作者进行分析。关键方法是对女性作者的相对频率、优势比和引用进行综合分析。声望指数衡量的是著名作者在男女之间的分布情况。原文献e85 Bendels MH等。性别差距……中华医学杂志2018；[j]: 85 - 94 H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H . H。结果女性作者占所有作者的35.0%，第一作者占34.3%，第二作者占36.1%，最后作者占24.2%。女性作者与男性作者相比，第一作者的比值比为0.97 (KI: 0.93 ~ 1.01)，最后作者的比值比为1.36 (KI: 1.32 ~ 1.40)，最后作者的比值比为0.57 （KI: 0.54 ~ 0.60）。总体而言，女性作者的比例年增长率为1.3%，其中第一作者为0.5%，共同作者为1.2%，最后作者为0.8%。与男性相比，女性在知名作者中的比例偏低（声望指数= -0.38）。在竞争激烈、吸引最高引用率的文章中，即有许多作者的文章和发表在影响力最高的期刊上的文章，代表性不足的情况尤为突出。男性主要作者的多作者文章比女性主要作者的文章被引用的频率更高。作者对文章的贡献越多，引用率的性别差异就越大。与男性相比，女性发表的文章较少（39.6%女性作者占作者总数的35.0%），而且在每位作者发表1篇以上文章的生产力水平上，女性的代表性不足。在国家一级显示出明显的差异。结论高影响力医学研究的特点是很少有女性小组领导作为最后作者，许多女性研究人员在职业生涯早期是第一或共同作者。这种按性别区分的职业二分法很可能在下一个十年中继续存在。
Objective The study aims to elucidate the state of gender equality in high-impact medical research, analyzing the representation of female authorships from January, 2008 to September, 2017. Methods 133 893 male and female authorships from seven high-impact medical journals were analyzed. The key methodology was the combined analysis of the relative frequency, odds ratio and citations of female authorships. The Prestige Index measures the distribution of prestigious authorships between the two genders. Originalarbeit e85 Bendels MH et al. Der Gendergap in... Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2018; 143: e85–e94 H er un te rg el ad en v on : U ni ve rs ity o f M as sa ch us et ts A m he rs t. U rh eb er re ch tli ch g es ch üt zt . Results 35.0 % of all authorships and 34.3 % of the first, 36.1 % of the coand 24.2 % of the last authorships were held by women. Female authors have an odds ratio of 0.97 (KI: 0.93 – 1.01) for first, 1.36 (KI: 1.32 – 1.40) for cound 0.57 (KI: 0.54 – 0.60) for last authorships compared to male authors. The proportion of female authorships exhibits an annual growth of 1.3 % overall, with 0.5 % for first, 1.2 % for co-, and 0.8 % for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorship compared to men (Prestige Index = –0.38). The underrepresentation accentuates in highly competitive articles attracting the highest citation rates, namely, articles with many authors and articles that were published in highest-impact journals. Multi-author articles with male key authors are more frequently cited than articles with female key authors. The gender-specific differences in citation rates increase the more authors contribute to an article. Women publish fewer articles compared to men (39.6 % female authors are responsible for 35.0 % of the authorships) and are underrepresented at productivity levels of more than 1 article per author. Distinct differences at the country level were revealed. Conclusion High impact medical research is characterized by few female group leaders as last authors and many female researchers being first or co-authors early in their career. It is very likely that this gender-specific career dichotomy will persistent in the next decade.