PD49-02 GENDER AND INVITED AUTHORSHIP IN THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Health Services & Population Research (PD49)1 Apr 2019PD49-02 GENDER AND INVITED AUTHORSHIP IN THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY Jennifer Ahn, Margarett Shnorhavorian, Shannon Cannon*, Kathleen Kieran, and Paul Merguerian Jennifer AhnJennifer Ahn More articles by this author , Margarett ShnorhavorianMargarett Shnorhavorian More articles by this author , Shannon Cannon*Shannon Cannon* More articles by this author , Kathleen KieranKathleen Kieran More articles by this author , and Paul MerguerianPaul Merguerian More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556865.22929.2cAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Publications in academic journals have been associated with promotion and career advancement. In many specialties, women have been underrepresented as authors and editors in journals. To our knowledge, this has not yet been examined in the subspecialty Pediatric Urology, in which females comprise about half of the current fellowship graduates. Our objective was to evaluate the role of gender in invited authorship and editorial positions in the Journal of Pediatric Urology. We hypothesized that women’s roles have increased over time, but that women are underrepresented as compared with professional society membership. METHODS: We examined all issues of the Journal of Pediatric Urology from 2005 to August 2018, recording editorial board members and first and senior authors for all editorials and invited commentaries. Gender and country of institution were also recorded for each individual. The same was done for the 2017 Societies for Pediatric Urology membership. For unknown authors, we visited institutional websites and used internet search engines to determine gender. Descriptive statistics were performed, along with Cochran-Armitage trend test and chi squared test, with a p value <0.05 considered significant. All analyses were performed with STATA 14. RESULTS: A total of 143 editorials and 162 invited commentaries were identified within the study period, with numbers increasing each year. Overall, these publications had 448 first and senior authorships, of which 49 (11%) were female. The 448 authorships represented 177 discrete authors with 23 (13%) being female. Of the 898 board positions over the study period, only 7.0% were held by females. The proportion of female authorships increased over time (p = 0.007), while the proportion of board positions did not (p=0.278), Figure 1. In 2017, SPU membership was 16.9% female, while invited authorship from Canada and the US was 13.7% female (p = 0.137). Only 11.7% of the Canadian or US editorial board members were female during that year (p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Female invited authorship has increased over the past 13 years in the Journal of Pediatric Urology, nearly reflecting SPU membership in 2017. However, editorial board membership has lagged, indicating an opportunity for change. Source of Funding: none Seattle, WA© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e905-e906 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jennifer Ahn More articles by this author Margarett Shnorhavorian More articles by this author Shannon Cannon* More articles by this author Kathleen Kieran More articles by this author Paul Merguerian More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».