ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2016
Gendermetrics.NET: a novel software for analyzing the gender representation in scientific authoring.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evolution and current state of global research on paediatric resuscitation: a systematic scientometric analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Contemporary scientometric analyses using a novel web application: the science performance evaluation (SciPE) approach.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2020Article
- A world map of evidence-based medicine: Density equalizing mapping of the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2019Article
- Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on prostate cancer.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImbalances in female career promotion are believed to be strong in the field of academic science. A primary parameter to analyze gender inequalities is the gender authoring in scientific publications. Since the presently available data on gender distribution is largely limited to underpowered studies, we here develop a new approach to analyze authors' genders in large bibliometric databases.
resultsA SQL-Server based multiuser software suite was developed that serves as an integrative tool for analyzing bibliometric data with a special emphasis on gender and topographical analysis. The presented system allows seamless integration, inspection, modification, evaluation and visualization of bibliometric data. By providing an adaptive and almost fully automatic integration and analysis process, the inter-individual variability of analysis is kept at a low level. Depending on the scientific question, the system enables the user to perform a scientometric analysis including its visualization within a short period of time.
conclusionIn summary, a new software suite for analyzing gender representations in scientific articles was established. The system is suitable for the comparative analysis of scientific structures on the level of continents, countries, cities, city regions, institutions, research fields and journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.