Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Commentary

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Authors: Pavel V. Ovseiko, Trisha Greenhalgh, Paula Adam, Jonathan Grant, Saba Hinrichs-Krapels, Kathryn E. Graham, Pamela A. Valentine, Omar Sued, Omar F. Boukhris, Nada M. Al Olaqi, Idrees S. Al Rahbi, Anne-Maree Dowd, Sara Bice, Tamika L. Heiden, Michael D. Fischer, Sue Dopson, Robyn Norton, Alexandra Pollitt, Steven Wooding, Gert V. Balling, Ulla Jakobsen, Ellen Kuhlmann, Ineke Klinge, Linda H. Pololi, Reshma Jagsi, Helen Lawton Smith, Henry Etzkowitz, Mathias W. Nielsen, Carme Carrion, Maite Solans‐Domènech, Esther Vizcaino, Lin Naing, Quentin H. N. Cheok, Baerbel Eckelmann, Moses C. Simuyemba, Temwa Msiska, Giovanna Declich, Laurel D. Edmunds, Vasiliki Kiparoglou, Alison M. J. Buchan, Catherine Williamson, Graham M. Lord, Keith M. Channon, Rebecca Surender, Alastair M. Buchan

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRefPubMed Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Klinge I. Bringing gender expertise to biomedical and health-related research. Gend Med. 2007;4 Suppl 2:S59–63.CrossRefPubMed Klinge I. Bringing gender expertise to biomedical and health-related research. Gend Med. 2007;4 Suppl 2:S59–63.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, Greenhalgh T, Frith P, Roberts NW, et al. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet. 2016;pii: S0140-6736(15)01091-0. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0. Ahead of print. Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, Greenhalgh T, Frith P, Roberts NW, et al. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet. 2016;pii: S0140-6736(15)01091-0. doi:10.​1016/​S0140-6736(15)01091-0. Ahead of print.
4.
go back to reference Pololi LH, Jones SJ. Women faculty: an analysis of their experiences in academic medicine and their coping strategies. Gend Med. 2010;7(5):438–50.CrossRefPubMed Pololi LH, Jones SJ. Women faculty: an analysis of their experiences in academic medicine and their coping strategies. Gend Med. 2010;7(5):438–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dottolo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(2):201–7.CrossRefPubMed Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dottolo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the culture of academic medicine: gender matters, a national study. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(2):201–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):565–72.CrossRefPubMed Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(3):565–72.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Curno MJ, Rossi S, Hodges-Mameletzis I, Johnston R, Price MA, Heidari S. A systematic review of the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in HIV research: from clinical studies of antiretrovirals and vaccines to cure strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):181–8.CrossRefPubMed Curno MJ, Rossi S, Hodges-Mameletzis I, Johnston R, Price MA, Heidari S. A systematic review of the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in HIV research: from clinical studies of antiretrovirals and vaccines to cure strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(2):181–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Amarnath S, Jankovic A, Sheets N, Ubel PA. Under-representation of women in high-impact published clinical cancer research. Cancer. 2009;115(14):3293–301.CrossRefPubMed Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Amarnath S, Jankovic A, Sheets N, Ubel PA. Under-representation of women in high-impact published clinical cancer research. Cancer. 2009;115(14):3293–301.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
go back to reference Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Atun R. Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Atun R. Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
go back to reference Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr. 2007;1(3):226–38.CrossRef Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr. 2007;1(3):226–38.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Marsh HW, Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D, O’Mara A. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(3):1290–326.CrossRef Marsh HW, Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D, O’Mara A. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(3):1290–326.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Turner S, Davidson P, Stanton L, Cawdeary V. Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Turner S, Davidson P, Stanton L, Cawdeary V. Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex differences in institutional support for junior biomedical researchers. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1175–7.CrossRefPubMed Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex differences in institutional support for junior biomedical researchers. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1175–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(11):804–11.CrossRefPubMed Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(11):804–11.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008;322(5907):1472–4.CrossRefPubMed Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008;322(5907):1472–4.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12349–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12349–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Vydareny KH, Waldrop SM, Jackson VP, Manaster BJ, Nazarian GK, Reich CA, et al. Career advancement of men and women in academic radiology: is the playing field level? Acad Radiol. 2000;7(7):493–501.CrossRefPubMed Vydareny KH, Waldrop SM, Jackson VP, Manaster BJ, Nazarian GK, Reich CA, et al. Career advancement of men and women in academic radiology: is the playing field level? Acad Radiol. 2000;7(7):493–501.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Bhattacharyya N, Shapiro NL. Increased female authorship in otolaryngology over the past three decades. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(3 Pt 1):358–61.CrossRefPubMed Bhattacharyya N, Shapiro NL. Increased female authorship in otolaryngology over the past three decades. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(3 Pt 1):358–61.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Amering M, Schrank B, Sibitz I. The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):946–52.CrossRefPubMed Amering M, Schrank B, Sibitz I. The gender gap in high-impact psychiatry journals. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):946–52.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, Henault LE, Chang Y, Starr R, et al. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):281–7.CrossRefPubMed Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, Henault LE, Chang Y, Starr R, et al. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):281–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Sidhu R, Rajashekhar P, Lavin VL, Parry J, Attwood J, Holdcroft A, et al. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. J R Soc Med. 2009;102(8):337–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sidhu R, Rajashekhar P, Lavin VL, Parry J, Attwood J, Holdcroft A, et al. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. J R Soc Med. 2009;102(8):337–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Piper CL, Scheel JR, Lee CI, Forman HP. Gender trends in radiology authorship: a 35-year analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMed Piper CL, Scheel JR, Lee CI, Forman HP. Gender trends in radiology authorship: a 35-year analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Kuhlmann E, Annandale E. Gender and healthcare policy. In: Kuhlmann E, Blank RH, Bourgeault IL, Wendt C, editors. The Palgrave international handbook of healthcare policy and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 578–96.CrossRef Kuhlmann E, Annandale E. Gender and healthcare policy. In: Kuhlmann E, Blank RH, Bourgeault IL, Wendt C, editors. The Palgrave international handbook of healthcare policy and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 578–96.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(38):iii–iv. ix-x, 1–152.CrossRefPubMed Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(38):iii–iv. ix-x, 1–152.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: the advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: the advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Ley TJ, Rosenberg LE. The physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005: build it, and they will come. JAMA. 2005;294(11):1343–51.CrossRefPubMed Ley TJ, Rosenberg LE. The physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005: build it, and they will come. JAMA. 2005;294(11):1343–51.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Puljak L, Kojundzic SL, Sapunar D. Gender and academic medicine: a good pipeline of women graduates is not advancing. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(3):273–8.CrossRefPubMed Puljak L, Kojundzic SL, Sapunar D. Gender and academic medicine: a good pipeline of women graduates is not advancing. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(3):273–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Sexton KW, Hocking KM, Wise E, Osgood MJ, Cheung-Flynn J, Komalavilas P, et al. Women in academic surgery: the pipeline is busted. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(1):84–90.CrossRefPubMed Sexton KW, Hocking KM, Wise E, Osgood MJ, Cheung-Flynn J, Komalavilas P, et al. Women in academic surgery: the pipeline is busted. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(1):84–90.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Neuschatz M, Uzzi B, Alonzo J. The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science. 1994;266(5182):51–4.CrossRefPubMed Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Neuschatz M, Uzzi B, Alonzo J. The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science. 1994;266(5182):51–4.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Commission of the European Communities. Women in science: the gender dimension as a leverage for reforming science. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2001. Commission of the European Communities. Women in science: the gender dimension as a leverage for reforming science. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2001.
40.
go back to reference Wilsford D. Path dependency, or why history makes it difficult but not impossible to reform health care systems in a big way. J Public Policy. 1994;14(3):251–83.CrossRef Wilsford D. Path dependency, or why history makes it difficult but not impossible to reform health care systems in a big way. J Public Policy. 1994;14(3):251–83.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Schiebinger L, editor. Women and gender in science and technology. London: Routledge; 2014. Schiebinger L, editor. Women and gender in science and technology. London: Routledge; 2014.
43.
go back to reference Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993;23(2):325–41.CrossRef Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993;23(2):325–41.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Lagro-Janssen T. Sex, gender and health: developments in medical research. In: Kuhlmann E, Annandale E, editors. The Palgrave handbook of gender and healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. p. 439–54. Lagro-Janssen T. Sex, gender and health: developments in medical research. In: Kuhlmann E, Annandale E, editors. The Palgrave handbook of gender and healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. p. 439–54.
46.
go back to reference Barrett-Connor E. Gender differences and disparities in all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality: epidemiological aspects. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;27(4):481–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Barrett-Connor E. Gender differences and disparities in all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality: epidemiological aspects. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;27(4):481–500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
go back to reference Gahagan J, Gray K, Whynacht A. Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gahagan J, Gray K, Whynacht A. Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
go back to reference Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(4):569–91.CrossRefPubMed Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(4):569–91.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Smith-Doerr L. Women’s work: gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2004. Smith-Doerr L. Women’s work: gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2004.
50.
go back to reference Marchant A, Bhattacharya A, Carnes M. Can the language of tenure criteria influence women’s academic advancement? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(7):998–1003.CrossRef Marchant A, Bhattacharya A, Carnes M. Can the language of tenure criteria influence women’s academic advancement? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(7):998–1003.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Van den Brink M. Scouting for talent: appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(12):2033–40.CrossRefPubMed Van den Brink M. Scouting for talent: appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(12):2033–40.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference de Melo-Martin I. Patenting and the gender gap: should women be encouraged to patent more? Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):491–504.CrossRefPubMed de Melo-Martin I. Patenting and the gender gap: should women be encouraged to patent more? Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):491–504.CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Lawton Smith H, Etzkowitz H, Meschitti V, Poulovassilis A. Female academic entrepreneurship and commercialisation: reviewing the evidence and identifying the challenges. In: Henry C, Nelson T, Lewis K, editors. The Routledge companion to global female entrepreneurship. London: Routledge; 2017. Lawton Smith H, Etzkowitz H, Meschitti V, Poulovassilis A. Female academic entrepreneurship and commercialisation: reviewing the evidence and identifying the challenges. In: Henry C, Nelson T, Lewis K, editors. The Routledge companion to global female entrepreneurship. London: Routledge; 2017.
54.
go back to reference Fox G, Schwartz A, Hart KM. Work-family balance and academic advancement in medical schools. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(3):227–34.CrossRefPubMed Fox G, Schwartz A, Hart KM. Work-family balance and academic advancement in medical schools. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(3):227–34.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (U.S.). Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2007. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (U.S.). Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2007.
56.
go back to reference Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7-8):509–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7-8):509–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
go back to reference Husu L. Gender discrimination in the promised land of gender equality. High Educ Eur. 2000;25(2):221–8.CrossRef Husu L. Gender discrimination in the promised land of gender equality. High Educ Eur. 2000;25(2):221–8.CrossRef
59.
go back to reference Harding SG. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1986. Harding SG. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1986.
60.
go back to reference Longino HE. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990. Longino HE. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.
61.
go back to reference Harding SG. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1991. Harding SG. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1991.
62.
go back to reference Nelson LH, Nelson J, editors. Feminism, science and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1996. Nelson LH, Nelson J, editors. Feminism, science and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1996.
63.
go back to reference Kostoff RN. Research impact assessment. Principles and applications to proposed, ongoing, and completed projects. Invest Radiol. 1994;29(9):864–9.CrossRefPubMed Kostoff RN. Research impact assessment. Principles and applications to proposed, ongoing, and completed projects. Invest Radiol. 1994;29(9):864–9.CrossRefPubMed
64.
go back to reference Fealing KH, Lane JI, Marburger JHI, Shipp SS, editors. The science of science policy: a handbook. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2011. Fealing KH, Lane JI, Marburger JHI, Shipp SS, editors. The science of science policy: a handbook. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2011.
66.
go back to reference Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
go back to reference Morgan Jones M, Grant J. Making the grade: methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact. In: Dean A, Wykes M, Stevens H, editors. 7 essays on impact. DESCRIBE project report for JISC. Exeter: University of Exeter; 2013. p. 25–43. Morgan Jones M, Grant J. Making the grade: methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact. In: Dean A, Wykes M, Stevens H, editors. 7 essays on impact. DESCRIBE project report for JISC. Exeter: University of Exeter; 2013. p. 25–43.
70.
go back to reference Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011;32(2):199–226.CrossRef Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011;32(2):199–226.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):759–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med. 2011;86(6):759–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
go back to reference Eloy JA, Svider PF, Kovalerchik O, Baredes S, Kalyoussef E, Chandrasekhar SS. Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMed Eloy JA, Svider PF, Kovalerchik O, Baredes S, Kalyoussef E, Chandrasekhar SS. Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMed
73.
go back to reference Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013;504(7479):211–3.CrossRefPubMed Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013;504(7479):211–3.CrossRefPubMed
74.
go back to reference McMillan GS. Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry. Scientometrics. 2009;80(3):683–91.CrossRef McMillan GS. Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry. Scientometrics. 2009;80(3):683–91.CrossRef
76.
go back to reference Bar-Ilan J, van der Weiden I. Altmetric gender bias? An exploratory study. Int J Comput Sci. 2015;4(1):16–22. Bar-Ilan J, van der Weiden I. Altmetric gender bias? An exploratory study. Int J Comput Sci. 2015;4(1):16–22.
77.
go back to reference Van der Weijden ICM, Zahedi Z, Must Ü, Meijer I. Gender differences in societal orientation and output of individual scientists. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; Leiden: Universiteit Leiden; 3–5 September 2014. p. 680–6. Van der Weijden ICM, Zahedi Z, Must Ü, Meijer I. Gender differences in societal orientation and output of individual scientists. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; Leiden: Universiteit Leiden; 3–5 September 2014. p. 680–6.
78.
go back to reference Oertelt-Prigione S, Parol R, Krohn S, Preissner R, Regitz-Zagrosek V. Analysis of sex and gender-specific research reveals a common increase in publications and marked differences between disciplines. BMC Med. 2010;8:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oertelt-Prigione S, Parol R, Krohn S, Preissner R, Regitz-Zagrosek V. Analysis of sex and gender-specific research reveals a common increase in publications and marked differences between disciplines. BMC Med. 2010;8:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
go back to reference Ovseiko PV, Edmunds LD, Pololi LH, Greenhalgh T, Kiparoglou V, Henderson LR, et al. Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ovseiko PV, Edmunds LD, Pololi LH, Greenhalgh T, Kiparoglou V, Henderson LR, et al. Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in translational research organisations: a rationale and study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
82.
go back to reference Johnson J, Sharman Z, Vissandjee B, Stewart DE. Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact? PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Johnson J, Sharman Z, Vissandjee B, Stewart DE. Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact? PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
go back to reference Equality Challenge Unit. GENDER-NET analysis report: award schemes, gender equality and structural change. London: Equality Challenge Unit; 2015. Equality Challenge Unit. GENDER-NET analysis report: award schemes, gender equality and structural change. London: Equality Challenge Unit; 2015.
87.
go back to reference Smith KA, Arlotta P. Watt FM; Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering Working Group, Solomon SL. Seven actionable strategies for advancing women in science, engineering, and medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(3):221–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Smith KA, Arlotta P. Watt FM; Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering Working Group, Solomon SL. Seven actionable strategies for advancing women in science, engineering, and medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(3):221–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
88.
go back to reference Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(43):13201–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(43):13201–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
89.
go back to reference McCracken DM. Winning the talent war for women. Sometimes it takes a revolution. Harv Bus Rev. 2000;78(6):159–60. 162, 164-157.PubMed McCracken DM. Winning the talent war for women. Sometimes it takes a revolution. Harv Bus Rev. 2000;78(6):159–60. 162, 164-157.PubMed
90.
go back to reference Davidson S. CSIRO diversity and inclusion plan 2012–15. Brisbane: CSIRO; 2013. Davidson S. CSIRO diversity and inclusion plan 2012–15. Brisbane: CSIRO; 2013.
92.
go back to reference Fischer MD, Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Bennett C, Ferlie E, Ledger J, et al. Knowledge leadership: mobilizing management research by becoming the knowledge object. Hum Relat. 2016;69(7):1563–85. doi:10.1177/0018726715619686.CrossRef Fischer MD, Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Bennett C, Ferlie E, Ledger J, et al. Knowledge leadership: mobilizing management research by becoming the knowledge object. Hum Relat. 2016;69(7):1563–85. doi:10.​1177/​0018726715619686​.CrossRef
93.
go back to reference Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2410–7.CrossRefPubMed Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, Sambuco D, DeCastro R, Ubel PA. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2410–7.CrossRefPubMed
94.
go back to reference Wright AL, Ryan K, St Germain P, Schwindt L, Sager R, Reed KL. Compensation in academic medicine: progress toward gender equity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1398–402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wright AL, Ryan K, St Germain P, Schwindt L, Sager R, Reed KL. Compensation in academic medicine: progress toward gender equity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1398–402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
98.
go back to reference Eloy JA, Svider P, Chandrasekhar SS, Husain Q, Mauro KM, Setzen M, et al. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(2):215–22.CrossRefPubMed Eloy JA, Svider P, Chandrasekhar SS, Husain Q, Mauro KM, Setzen M, et al. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(2):215–22.CrossRefPubMed
100.
go back to reference Cydulka RK, D’Onofrio G, Schneider S, Emerman CL, Sullivan LM. Women in academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(9):999–1007.CrossRefPubMed Cydulka RK, D’Onofrio G, Schneider S, Emerman CL, Sullivan LM. Women in academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(9):999–1007.CrossRefPubMed
101.
go back to reference Oakley A. Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing: some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology. 1998;32(4):707–31.CrossRef Oakley A. Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing: some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology. 1998;32(4):707–31.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment
Authors
Pavel V. Ovseiko
Trisha Greenhalgh
Paula Adam
Jonathan Grant
Saba Hinrichs-Krapels
Kathryn E. Graham
Pamela A. Valentine
Omar Sued
Omar F. Boukhris
Nada M. Al Olaqi
Idrees S. Al Rahbi
Anne-Maree Dowd
Sara Bice
Tamika L. Heiden
Michael D. Fischer
Sue Dopson
Robyn Norton
Alexandra Pollitt
Steven Wooding
Gert V. Balling
Ulla Jakobsen
Ellen Kuhlmann
Ineke Klinge
Linda H. Pololi
Reshma Jagsi
Helen Lawton Smith
Henry Etzkowitz
Mathias W. Nielsen
Carme Carrion
Maite Solans‐Domènech
Esther Vizcaino
Lin Naing
Quentin H. N. Cheok
Baerbel Eckelmann
Moses C. Simuyemba
Temwa Msiska
Giovanna Declich
Laurel D. Edmunds
Vasiliki Kiparoglou
Alison M. J. Buchan
Catherine Williamson
Graham M. Lord
Keith M. Channon
Rebecca Surender
Alastair M. Buchan
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue