Historically, a large majority of newly elected members of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS) were men. Within the past two decades, however, that situation has changed, and in the last 3 y, women made up about 40% of the new members in both academies. We build lists of active scholars from publications in the top journals in three fields-psychology, mathematics, and economics-and develop a series of models to compare changes in the probability of selection of women as members of the NAS and AAAS from the 1960s to today, controlling for publications and citations. In the early years of our sample, women were less likely to be selected as members than men with similar records. By the 1990s, the selection process at both academies was approximately gender neutral, conditional on publications and citations. In the past 20 y, however, a positive preference for female members has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are 3 to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the AAAS and NAS than men with similar publication and citation records. The positive preference for women may be in part a reflection of concerns that women face higher barriers to publishing in top journals and may receive less credit for their work.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942810 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212421120 | DOI Listing |
Campbell Syst Rev
March 2025
School of Basic Medical Sciences, Evidence-Based Medicine Centre Lanzhou University Lanzhou China.
Background: A systematic review is a type of literature review that uses rigorous methods to synthesize evidence from multiple studies on a specific topic. It is widely used in academia, including medical and social science research. Social science is an academic discipline that focuses on human behaviour and society.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTransl Lung Cancer Res
December 2024
Precision Medicine Translational Research Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Background And Objective: While bibliometric studies of single journals have been conducted, bibliometric mapping has not yet been used to analyze the literature published by the (). This study aimed to comprehensively review all publications of from its inception to 2024 and provide a detailed overview of its main publication characteristics.
Methods: This study analyzed publications from spanning 2012 to 2024 using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the 'Bibliometrix' package in R.
Reg Anesth Pain Med
January 2025
Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Padua University Hospital, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT 4o and a custom-designed model, Meta-Analysis Librarian, in generating accurate search strings for systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of anesthesiology.
Methods: We selected 85 SRs from the top 10 anesthesiology journals, according to Web of Science rankings, and extracted reference lists as benchmarks. Using study titles as input, we generated four search strings per SR: three with ChatGPT 4o using general prompts and one with the Meta-Analysis Librarian model, which follows a structured, Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome-based approach aligned with Cochrane Handbook standards.
Arch Dermatol Res
January 2025
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Mississippi and JV "Sonny" Montgomery Veterans Hospital, Jackson, MS, USA.
Objectives: To examine the rate of skin color reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving melanoma in the top ten highest dermatology journals by impact factor over the past four decades.
Methods: A systematic review of RCTs involving melanoma within the top ten dermatology journals, as determined by impact factor, was conducted from inception to July 10th, 2023. Studies were included if they reviewed the diagnosis and/or treatment of melanoma, were RCTs, directly involved patients and were written in English.
JAMA Netw Open
January 2025
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Importance: Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings.
Objective: To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!