现在的位置: 首页时讯速递, 进展交流>正文
[BMJ圣诞专刊]:科学家总结其研究重要性时的性别差异:观察性研究
2020年01月10日 时讯速递, 进展交流 暂无评论

Research Christmas 2019: Sweet Little Lies

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

Marc J Lerchenmueller, Olav Sorenson, Anupam B Jena

BMJ 2019; 367: l6573 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6573 (Published 16 December 2019)

Abstract

Objectives 目的

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.

医学和生命科学领域女性比例较低。展示自己的临床研究结果时是否存在性别差异,以及这一差异的后果均难以评价。本研究目的在于分析男性与女性在从对研究结果进行阳性总结方面是否存在差异,并分析对于研究结果的阳性总结是否伴随后续的高引用率。

Design 试验设计

Retrospective observational study.

回顾性观察研究

Data sources 数据来源

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.

2002年至2017年间PubMed索引并发表的101720临床研究论文及约620万生命科学论文的题目与摘要。

Main outcome measures 主要预后指标

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.

分析论文题目与摘要以确定男性与女性对于其研究结果的阳性总结(通过使用“novel”或“excellent”等名词)。对于总共25个阳性总结性名词,我们将阳性总结相对概率与第一及最后作者性别组成的相关性进行分析,并对杂志、发表年份、杂志影响因子及科学领域进行校正。

Results 结果

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.

第一作者与最后作者均为女性的论文中,10.9%的标题或摘要中25个阳性总结名词至少出现一次,而男性作为第一或最后作者的论文中,这一比例为12.2%,相对差异为12.3% (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%)。阳性展示的性别差异在高影响因子杂志(影响因子 >10)最为明显,此时女性对研究结果进行阳性总结减少 21.4%。在所有临床杂志中,研究结果的阳性总结伴随后续引用率增加 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%),高影响因子杂志发表论文中对于研究结果的阳性总结伴随后续引用率增加 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%)。当扩展到PubMed索引杂志发表的一般生命科学论文时,可以得到相似结果,提示阳性名词使用的性别差异可以推广到更广泛的样本。

Conclusions 结论

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.

与第一和最后作者均为女性的论文相比,男性作为第一或最后作者的临床论文更倾向于在标题和摘要中将研究结果进行阳性总结,尤其是高影响因子杂志。对于研究结果的阳性总结伴随高引用率。

给我留言

您必须 [ 登录 ] 才能发表留言!

×
腾讯微博