ArticleCureus2020
Sex Disparity Among Faculty of Physiology in North American Academia: Differences in Scholarly Productivity and Academic Rank.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical academic research done in various specialties shows sex disparity in terms of academic and leadership rank. Research shows that in many medical academic research fields, there are a greater number of men with higher academic and leadership ranks, as well as higher research productivity. This begs the question: What is the case for medical academic research specifically in physiology departments throughout North America? Upon review of the literature, we found that a knowledge gap still exists in North America regarding sex differences among the faculty of physiology. Our rationale for this study is that if a sex disparity among the faculty of physiology in North American academia is found, steps can be taken to lower this disparity. The very first step is identifying that a problem exists. Scopus was used to obtain the h-index, years of active research, and the number of publications and citations of each faculty member. The h-index was used as a metric of academic output and scholarly productivity. Univariate regression was run with the h-index as the outcome of interest and multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with a higher h-index. The analysis showed that while the overall number of females holding academic positions in physiology departments throughout North America has increased over the years, a large sex disparity still exists between males and females in the field. This disparity exists not only in academic and leadership rank but also in research productivity, a key predictor of success in the field. This finding warrants that further work be done to find what is causing this disparity and how it can be addressed.
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.