Cargando…

Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study

OBJECTIVES: Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lerchenmueller, Marc J, Sorenson, Olav, Jena, Anupam B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31843745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6573
_version_ 1783527617496875008
author Lerchenmueller, Marc J
Sorenson, Olav
Jena, Anupam B
author_facet Lerchenmueller, Marc J
Sorenson, Olav
Jena, Anupam B
author_sort Lerchenmueller, Marc J
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES: Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS: Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7190066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71900662020-05-01 Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study Lerchenmueller, Marc J Sorenson, Olav Jena, Anupam B BMJ Research OBJECTIVES: Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES: Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as “novel” or “excellent.” For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS: Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2019-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7190066/ /pubmed/31843745 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6573 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Lerchenmueller, Marc J
Sorenson, Olav
Jena, Anupam B
Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title_full Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title_fullStr Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title_full_unstemmed Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title_short Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
title_sort gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31843745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6573
work_keys_str_mv AT lerchenmuellermarcj genderdifferencesinhowscientistspresenttheimportanceoftheirresearchobservationalstudy
AT sorensonolav genderdifferencesinhowscientistspresenttheimportanceoftheirresearchobservationalstudy
AT jenaanupamb genderdifferencesinhowscientistspresenttheimportanceoftheirresearchobservationalstudy