View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Are Women Equally Represented in High-Quality Physical Education Research? Evidence from 2000 to 2020

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Are Women Equally Represented in High-Quality Physical Education Research? Evidence from 2000 to 2020
Language: English
Authors: Iglesias, Damián (ORCID 0000-0002-9773-0813), Fernandez-Rio, Javier (ORCID 0000-0002-1368-3723)
Source: Sport, Education and Society. 2023 28(5):594-608.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Females, Physical Education, Educational Research, Disproportionate Representation, Barriers, Gender Bias, Researchers, Periodicals, Gender Differences, Authors, Citations (References), Women Administrators
DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2022.2054793
ISSN: 1357-3322
1470-1243
Abstract: Studies on gender gaps in research have reported several differences favoring males over females. Women scholars face many more barriers and biases in their professional career when compared to their men colleagues. This descriptive study aimed to provide, for the first time, a contemporary picture of women's representativeness in high-quality physical education research (JCR-Q1-Q2 journals) from 2000 to 2020. Based on prevalent metrics, the following specific research questions were used to guide the concern and direction of this gender-gap analysis: (RQ1) What is the women/men first authorship ratio? (RQ2) What is the women/men authors' ratio in the top 1-2% contribution? (RQ3) What are the women/men citation rates and "h-index" ratios? (RQ4) What is the women/men ratio in the roles of editor-in-chief or editorial board members? A total of 1,815 published articles from six top peer-reviewed journals ("European Physical Education Review, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Quest, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Sport, Education and Society") and their respective editorial board members (n = 258) were examined. A gender-gap analysis was conducted on four elements: first authorships, contributions, citations and "h-index," and editorial board membership. The results reported: (1) 41.6% of women first authorship; (2) 27.7% of the top 1-2% of total contributions were women; (3) 29.62% of articles with more than 100 citations were published by women as first authors; (4) no gender differences in "h-index" of the top 1-2% researchers; (5) no women held the editor-in-chief position; and (6) 46.9% of editorial team members were women. These findings show that women are still underrepresented in high-quality research in physical education, and they represent a critical starting point to trace working paths. Administrations should activate mechanisms to seek gender equality. In particular, gender-equity policies should be promoted in physical education research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1388443
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEWlseN0MPqSmf36qATcTI1AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHCCEYWepAey835tiAIBEICBm7A3klk44HN9F50wI6mpEc_5ykGTOOsqAHU52uF_nOx7RlkAH7xJlbVzF7WRaCzzuuzbENoWXr5rS_S1-qwerfR_KcVGXWXtMFm95mNHr6ijUSj4ruvaMx5-au0QliT9mKKzZhDG_SWt6JkXqwozPiZP1CVnnWS1hdo7fyu0GSz1ak0jzUccfRv8fT9sKQJZ5-BmfUdY2QdQed9N
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163950471;0uv01jun.23;2023May30.07:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163950471-1">Are women equally represented in high-quality physical education research? Evidence from 2000 to 2020 </title> <p>Studies on gender gaps in research have reported several differences favoring males over females. Women scholars face many more barriers and biases in their professional career when compared to their men colleagues. This descriptive study aimed to provide, for the first time, a contemporary picture of women's representativeness in high-quality physical education research (JCR-Q1-Q2 journals) from 2000 to 2020. Based on prevalent metrics, the following specific research questions were used to guide the concern and direction of this gender-gap analysis: (RQ1) What is the women/men first authorship ratio? (RQ2) What is the women/men authors' ratio in the top 1–2% contribution? (RQ3) What are the women/men citation rates and h-index ratios? (RQ4) What is the women/men ratio in the roles of editor-in-chief or editorial board members? A total of 1,815 published articles from six top peer-reviewed journals (European Physical Education Review, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Quest, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Sport, Education and Society) and their respective editorial board members (n = 258) were examined. A gender-gap analysis was conducted on four elements: first authorships, contributions, citations and h-index, and editorial board membership. The results reported: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) 41.6% of women first authorship, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) 27.7% of the top 1–2% of total contributions were women, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) 29.62% of articles with more than 100 citations were published by women as first authors, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) no gender differences in h-index of the top 1–2% researchers, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) no women held the editor-in-chief position, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>) 46.9% of editorial team members were women. These findings show that women are still underrepresented in high-quality research in physical education, and they represent a critical starting point to trace working paths. Administrations should activate mechanisms to seek gender equality. In particular, gender-equity policies should be promoted in physical education research.</p> <p>Keywords: Gender gap; gender bias; research; women; physical education</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Is science still sexist? This is an old question of great concern and interest today. The study of the gender gap in scientific research woke up early (Rossi, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref7">52</reflink>]), and it reported differences favoring males over females (Raymond, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref8">51</reflink>]). Research has showed that women scholars face many more barriers and biases in their professional career when compared to their men colleagues (Larivière et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref9">34</reflink>]). Men are invited to submit articles to journals at twice the rate than women (Holman et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref10">23</reflink>]). Less than 1/3 of researchers worldwide are women, and less than 3% of scientists who have won a <emph>Nobel Prize</emph> in physics, chemistry or medicine are women (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref11">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>No study to date has provided a detailed analysis of gender imbalance in physical education (PE) research. The aim of this paper, therefore, was to provide evidence about women (mis)representation in PE discipline. Therefore, this paper aimed to provide evidence about women's (mis)representation in PE discipline. This descriptive study in nature, focused on comparative ratios between women and men, should be considered a first step (for the first time) to learn about the current status, for the community to react and suggest paths towards gender equity in PE research.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-3">Authorship</hd> <p>Research productivity is a key factor in academic promotion (Chatterjee & Werner, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]), including the position in authorship (Wren et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref13">67</reflink>]). First authorship in peer-reviewed journals is widely regarded as an indicator of success in the field of research (Evans & Bucy, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]; Evans & Moulder, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]; Way et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref16">64</reflink>]) and women are underrepresented, especially in high-quality research (James et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]). In some of the most prestigious journals such as <emph>Nature</emph> or <emph>The Lancet</emph> the number of female first authors is lower than men (Holman et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]). For example, 33.1% of the first authorships were held by women in high-quality research in Nature Index journals (Bendels et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]). Another recent study in the five top neuroscience journals found a limited 37% female first authorship (Dworkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although previous literature has shown a gender imbalance, the representation of female authors in scientific publications does not follow a common generalized pattern. It differs depending on the academic discipline. Recently, Holman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]) conducted a large study on more than 10 million academic papers published from 2002 to 2017 in more than 6,000 journals belonging to 115 different scientific disciplines. Findings revealed that 87 of the 115 disciplines examined have significantly less than 45% female authors. Topics such as chemistry, mathematics, computer science, physics, and surgery had the fewest women authors, while health-related disciplines like midwifery, nursing, and palliative care had the most. Speech-language pathology and social sciences presented values higher than 50% of female first authors and are becoming significantly more female-biased disciplines. Huang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]) reconstructed the full publishing career of nearly 8 million scientists corresponding to 8 disciplines to find higher unequal women representation in psychology (33.2% of authorship). In the same line, female names represented 13–30% of all first authors in 13 geosciences journals (Pico et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]). However, some recent data have indicated significant progress. For example, Nguyen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref24">45</reflink>]) determined the changes in the distribution of women as first authors in 14,658 articles belonging to 8 pharmacy journals. A statistically significant increase from 45.1% to 55.4% in the number of first-authored articles by women was found. Authors interpreted that more women entering the pharmacy profession in the last decade could be a possible reason for this improvement. Keller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]) found that women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017 in five family medicine journal, being no reason for this increase argued. In sport sciences, a recent study with 4,841 articles published in 14 top journals (first decile) found that the average proportion of female first authorship was 24.8% with an annual increase of 0.5% (Martínez-Rosales et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>More specifically, previous research on the presence of female authors in the discipline of education has been scarce, basically reduced to four studies. The oldest found 27% female authors in a total of 2,239 articles published in 6 journals (Lockheed & Stein, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]). White ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]) discovered that 30% of the authors of 77 articles published in <emph>Research in Science Education</emph> were female. Subsequently, Zawacki-Richter and von Prümmer ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref29">68</reflink>]) examined 695 articles published in 5 journals, and the representation of female authors was 46%. More recently, in the macro study by Holman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]), 62% of women signatories were found as the first author for education. Therefore, literature reports a growing trend of female authors, positive for gender equality in education as a scientific discipline. To our knowledge, PE has not yet been examined.</p> <p>On the other hand, the last authorship has been identified as a sign of academic leadership in scholarly publication, linking this position to researchers in supervision and mentoring roles (Carr et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]). In many disciplines, prevailing conventions regarding authorship order mean that first authors are usually early career researchers, while last authors tend to be comparatively senior (Wren et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref32">67</reflink>]). Some gender-gap studies have focused on senior (last) authorship. The biggest to date (Holman et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]) found that the percentage of women last authorship was below 50% in 108 of the 115 disciplines assessed, presenting a more balanced status in four fields of study (palliative care, social sciences, education and sexually transmitted diseases), and a higher representation in other three (midwifery, nursing and speech-language pathology). In another large study, a total of 293,557 articles from 54 Nature Index journals assessed showed that women only held 18.1% of the last authorships (Bendels et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>]). Martínez-Rosales et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]) found in sport sciences that the average proportion of female last authorship was 16.8%, with no changes over time. In the same line, a non-significantly increase from 37.7% in 2002 to 43.7% in 2017 was found by Keller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]) in five family medicine journals. There has been no previous research conducted about the last authorship in PE.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-4">Citations and h-index</hd> <p>Gender patterns have also been assessed in terms of the number of citations received. For example, previous work in citation gaps focused on citation counts of papers, finding that the work conducted by women tends to receive fewer citations than similar work performed by men in astronomy (Caplar et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]). In the recent study carried out by Dworkin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]) in neuroscience, where a total of 303,886 citations were analysed, only 29.4% corresponded to articles signed by women as first authors. Articles with female first authors are less frequently cited than articles with male first authors (Bendels et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]). In addition, published research indicated that female researchers had a lower <emph>h-index</emph> than men in scientific fields such as ecology and evolutionary biology (Symonds et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref40">59</reflink>]), anaesthesiology (Pashkova et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]), radiation oncology (Holliday et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]), psychology (Geraci et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]), surgery (Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]) or medicine (Ha et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]). The <emph>h-index</emph> is a metric that seeks to quantify scholarly impact considering both the number of published papers of individual scientists and their impact as indicated by the number of times each has been cited (Hirsch, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]). For example, a scientist would have an <emph>h</emph>-<emph>index</emph> of 23 if this person has 23 papers that have each been cited at least 23 times. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies focused on citation rates or <emph>h-index</emph> in education sciences or PE.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-5">Editorial board membership</hd> <p>The scholars comprising journals' editorial boards play a critical role in publishing processes and women's representation has also been the subject of research. Kennedy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]) found a low representation of women in the editorial teams (range 7.7%–36.7%) and the editor position (25%) of 12 major medical journals. Jagsi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]) found that women were underrepresented (11.7%) on editorial boards of 16 major biomedical journals over a 35-year period. Nevertheless, an increasing trend toward greater women representation was observed (1.4% in 1970 to 16.0% in 2005). Amrein et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]) analysed the gender of editorial board members of 60 top-ranked medical journals and found that only 15.9% were women editors and 17.5% of all editorial board members were females. Topaz and Sen ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]) evaluated gender representation on the editorial boards of 435 journals in mathematical sciences; women only held 8.9% of editorships were held by women. In 57 management journals, women were also underrepresented (Metz & Harzing, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref51">43</reflink>]). Nine radiology journals with the highest impact factor were selected by Jalilianhasanpour et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref52">27</reflink>]) for gender bias analysis of editorial board members: women represented 13.4% and there was no woman editor-in-chief. Women accounted for 29% of the handling editors across six journals in ecology and evolution (Fox et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>]). Haffez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) analysed the gender of editorial members of 119 psychiatry journals finding that women represented only 30.4%. Gallivan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>]) examined gender representation within the editorial boards of the 27 highest-ranking international general surgery journals: women constituted 20.2% of total editorial board positions and 11% of editor-in-chief. Ehrlich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]) found that women represented 14.8% of the editorial board members from 42 surgical journals and only 4.8% of editors-in-chief. In sport sciences, Martínez-Rosales et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref57">40</reflink>]) evaluated the editorial teams of 14 top journals finding that women only represented 18.3% and no one held the role of editor-in-chief. This low representation of women in the editorial boards impacts the distribution and management of the manuscripts to be reviewed. Some evidence indicated that 67% were assigned to male editorial board members and 33% to females in medical disciplines (Wing et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref58">66</reflink>]). To the best of our knowledge, this gender bias on the editorial board have yet to be studied within PE.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-6">Current study</hd> <p>Based on the aforementioned, this study aimed to examine women's representation in high-quality[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>] PE research. To provide a contemporary picture, only articles published in the last two decades in top journals of this academic discipline were considered. A general research question was formulated to obtain a major focus of the study (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>]): Are women equally represented in top PE research? Based on prevalent metrics (Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]), the following specific research questions were used to guide the concern and direction of this gender-gap analysis (Alvesson & Sandberg, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]):</p> <p>RQ1. What is the women/men first authorship ratio?</p> <p>RQ2. What is the women/men authors' ratio in the top 1–2% contribution?</p> <p>RQ3. What are the women/men citation rates and <emph>h-index</emph> ratios?</p> <p>RQ4. What is the women/men ratio in the roles of editor-in-chief or editorial board members?</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163950471-8">Search strategy</hd> <p>A retrospective research study was designed (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]) to assess publications considered top PE research. Data were extracted from the <emph>Web of Science</emph> (WoS) and derived from the <emph>Social Science Citation Index</emph> and the <emph>Science Citation Index Expanded</emph> by <emph>Clarivate Analytics</emph>. WoS database was used for many reasons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) it is considered the standard and the most common collection of scholarly publications in most disciplines (Ivanović & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref65">25</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) it is the most widely used database with a more complete research metadata (Meho & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref67">41</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) it provides a wider coverage of citation information compared to <emph>Scopus</emph> or <emph>Google Scholar</emph> (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>) it provides better accuracy in the journal classification system (Wang & Waltman, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref71">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>The search term 'physical education' in title or keywords was employed to retrieve peer-reviewed journal articles included in the <emph>Journal Citation Reports</emph> (JCR), published and written in English; using two filters to obtain a top representation. First, articles published in journals included in quartiles 1 (Q1) and 2 (Q2) in the last five years (2016–2020 inclusive and at least 3 of the 5 years in JCR-Q1-Q2) of <emph>Education & Educational Research</emph> or <emph>Sport Sciences</emph> categories. Second, to guarantee adequate representativeness within the PE discipline, journals with less than 150 published articles on the PE discipline were discarded for not having a priority role in promoting research in this field. In addition, to provide a modern picture, a search time range was set from January 2000 to December 2020. The search produced a total of 1,815 articles from six high-quality journals (<emph>European Physical Education Review, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Quest, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Sport, Education and Society</emph>), which were retained for further analysis (Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Search strategy.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-9">Gender identification</hd> <p>The WoS database does not provide authors' gender information. Gender author was inferred by names via Gender API (<ulink href="http://gender-api.com">http://gender-api.com</ulink>), which was found to be the best-performing source (Santamaría & Mihaljevic, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>]), compared to the other four commonly used name-to-gender inference web services (genderize.io, NameAPI, NamSor and Python package gender-guesser). For names that were not found, or found with probability <95%, or unisex names, additional resources were used (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Twitter, personal and institutional web pages) to tabulate gender in binary form (Fox et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-10">Procedure and data analysis</hd> <p>Data collection took place in July 2021, when the new and last JCR version (2020) was available. First, women's representation for first authorship was calculated for all the papers selected and separately for each journal, reporting the average percentage. In addition, the number of cases where the first author was also the corresponding author was identified. Scatterplots and fitted linear regressions were used to evaluate female and male first authorship over time. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS v.20 (IBM, Chicago). Second, women's representation in top 1–2% contributions was assessed through the 'analyse results' option of WoS. Third, the number of citations in articles signed by women or men as the first author was evaluated through the 'citation report' option of WoS. The scientists' <emph>h-index</emph> was retrieved from WoS. Fourth, editor-in-chief and editorial board members were assessed from a gender perspective for the selected journals. Data were collected via journal website (updated on July 2021).</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163950471-12">RQ1: Women/men first authorship ratio in the top 1–2% contribution</hd> <p>Of the 1,815 articles analysed, 41.6% of first authorships were women (Figure 2). Ordered from highest to lowest female representation, the journals presented the following percentages: 47.9% <emph>Sport, Education and Society</emph>, 43.2% <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph>, 40.8% <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph>, 40.7% <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>, 39.3% <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, and 30.1% <emph>Quest</emph> (Figure 3). Additionally, 92.9% agreement was identified between the first author and the corresponding author. The range of agreement between the first author and the corresponding author varied from 89.9% (<emph>European Physical Education Review)</emph> and 98.7% (<emph>Quest)</emph>.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Number of published articles by women and men as first authorship (92.9 % corresponding) from 2000 to 2020.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Number of published articles by women and men as first authors by publication title.</p> <p>Lack of association over time was observed in the scatterplots and linear regressions, both for the percentage of female first authors (<emph>β</emph> = −.102; <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.010; <emph>F</emph> =.200; <emph>p</emph>-value =.660) and for men (<emph>β </emph>=.102; <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.010; <emph>F</emph> =.200; <emph>p</emph>-value =.660). Both models presented the same adjustment coefficients (Figure 4).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Scatterplots and linear regressions assessing the evolution of the percent women and men first authorship over the years.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-13">RQ2: Women/men authors' ratio between 1–2% total contributions</hd> <p>There was a total of 2,414 authors registered in the 1,815 selected articles. A scientific productivity analysis is available through the 'analyse results' option of WoS. A list of 18 researchers, ordered by the number of records, were ranked between the top 1–2% contributions. Only five women (27.77%) appeared on this list. Equal gender representation (50%) was identified when considering only the top six authors. The first ranked was a man with 46 articles (2.534% of 1,815), while the second (<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref74">36</reflink>, 1.983%) and third (<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>, 1.653%) were women. The three remaining women were ranked sixth (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref76">27</reflink>, 1.488%), eighth (<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>, 1.433%) and sixteenth (<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>, 1.102%).</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-14">RQ3: Women/men citation rates and h-index ratio</hd> <p>Through the 'citation report' option, available from WoS, we found that the 1,815 publications assessed had a total of 12,227 cites (10,674 without self-citations). Total times cited was 33,184 (24,426 without self-citations) with an <emph>h-index</emph> = 70. 40.01% for all citations corresponded to articles signed by women as the first author. Women only signed as the first author 29.62% of the articles with 100 or more citations (27 articles).</p> <p>On the other hand, the <emph>h-index</emph> of the 18 researchers included in the top 1–2% of the total contributions was ranged from 13 to 39 (<emph>M</emph> = 20.88; <emph>SD</emph> = 6.14). No significant differences (<emph>p</emph> > 0.05) were found between women (<emph>M</emph> = 19.80; <emph>SD</emph> = 4.20) and men (<emph>M</emph> = 21.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 6.90). The two highest <emph>h-indices</emph> corresponded to men (39 and 31). The five women registered in this list occupied positions three (<emph>h-index</emph> = 24), four (<emph>h-index</emph> = 22), five (<emph>h-index</emph> = 21), seven (<emph>h-index</emph> = 19) and 18 (<emph>h-index</emph> = 13). In the case of position four, two men presented an <emph>h-index</emph> = 22.</p> <p>When the <emph>h-index</emph> of each researcher was retrieved, additional metrics were also available about author write position (first, last) in WoS database. The two researchers with the highest number of contributions presented higher percentages of first than last authorship (first ranked: 46% first, 21% last; second ranked: 31% first, 27% last). In a similar way, it happened with the two researchers with the highest <emph>h-index</emph> (<emph>H</emph> = 39: 42% first, 29% last; <emph>H</emph> = 31: 36% first, 30% last). Furthermore, 12 researchers out of the 18 most productive (1–2% of total contributions) presented a higher percentage of first than last authorship.</p> <p>Finally, connections between the <emph>h-index</emph> and editorial board membership were obtained. In the case of men, the researcher who had the highest <emph>h-index</emph> (<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>) is editor-in-chief at <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> and member of the advisory board at <emph>Sport, Education and Society</emph>. The researcher (man) who presented the second highest <emph>h-index</emph> (<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref80">31</reflink>) belongs to the editorial membership of <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph>, <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, and <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph>. The third (<emph>h-index</emph> = 22) is an editorial board member at <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, and <emph>Quest</emph>. The fourth <emph>(h-index</emph> = 20) is an associate editor at <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> and editorial board member at <emph>Sport, Education and Society</emph>. Concerning women, the researcher who presented the highest <emph>h-index</emph> (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>) is not present in any of the analysed journals (an exception). The second (<emph>h-index</emph> = 22) was past editor-in-chief at <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, and currently editorial membership in the same journal and at <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>. The third (<emph>h-index</emph> = 21) is associate editor in <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> and an editorial board member in <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>. Finally, the fourth (<emph>h-index</emph> = 19) holds editorial membership at <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph>, <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph>, <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>, and <emph>Sport Education and Society</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-15">RQ4: Women/men ratio in editor-in-chief or editorial board membership</hd> <p>Women representation as editor-in-chief in the six journals assessed was non-existent (Table 1). The representation of women as part of the editorial team, including editors, associate editors, advisory board and editorial board, was 46.9%. Ordered from highest to lowest female representation, the journals presented the following percentages: 67.6% (23/34) <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,</emph> 66.6% (18/27) <emph>Sport, Education and Society,</emph> 45.7% (16/35) <emph>European Physical Education Review,</emph> 40.4% (17/42) <emph>Quest,</emph> 39% (16/41) <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,</emph> and 34.1% (15/44) <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>.</p> <p>Table 1. Women representation in editorial board members in top physical education peer-review journals.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Journal</td><td>Editor in chief</td><td>Editorial board members* [women/total (%)]</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>European Physical Education Review</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">16/35 (45.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">16/41 (39%)</td></tr><tr><td>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">23/34 (67.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Quest</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">17/42 (40.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">15/44 (34.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Sport, Education and Society</td><td>Man</td><td char="(">18/27 (66.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>Men (100%)</td><td char="(">121/258 (46.9%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: * Positions included: editor, associate editor, advisory board, editorial board.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-16">Discussion</hd> <p>This descriptive study aimed to provide, for the first time, a contemporary picture on women's representativeness in high-quality PE research and results showed positive and negative bias.</p> <p>From a global point of view, results showed that PE has experienced a notable increase in the number of publications in top journals during the last 20 years. However, this growth did not occur similarly for men and women regarding the first authorship. 41.6% of first authors were women, and this underrepresentation is consistent with the results found in previous studies in disciplines such as neurosciences (Dworkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]), geosciences (Pico et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]), sport sciences (Martínez-Rosales et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref84">40</reflink>]) and psychology (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref85">24</reflink>]). In education, older studies showed this same women's underrepresentation (Zawacki-Richter & von Prümmer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref86">68</reflink>]), but a new one showed the opposite: overrepresentation (62%) (Holman et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref87">23</reflink>]). PE is one of the fields of study where equal representation in the articles' first authorship has not been reached. In countries like Spain, the number of women entering the field of PE, physical activity and sports has decreased over the last 25 years (Serra et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref88">56</reflink>]). This situation might directly reflect the number of women scientists in this field of study and, consequently, their production. There seem to be a need to make this field more attractive to women to overturn this underrepresentation (Metcalfe, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref89">42</reflink>]; Preece & Bullingham, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref90">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early career has been related to first authorship, while senior position with last authorship (Wren et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]). It could be interpreted that the researchers with the highest number of contributions and the highest <emph>h-index</emph> probably would have developed more supervision and mentoring roles, and therefore would occupy a greater number of leadership positions (senior-last). However, results from the present study did not support this idea since 12 researchers out of the 18 most productive presented a higher percentage of first than last authorship. Two important elements in the PE field need to be clarified to move beyond this paradox and become closer (scientifically speaking) to other scientific disciplines: (i) who a senior author is and (ii) when an author can be considered senior. Both are clearly identified in other fields of study.</p> <p>On the other hand, a more egalitarian finding was observed in the top 1–2% contributions (50% women when considering the top six authors). It indicates the existence of top female researchers in the same line as men, a contrast with male predominance in science (James et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]). Unfortunately, some of them are retiring and it will be interesting to find if there are replacements for them, who could keep the 'high pace'.</p> <p>Regarding the total number of citations received, data conform with previous studies, where scores of women's representation below 50% were also found in disciplines such as astronomy (Caplar et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref93">5</reflink>]) or neurosciences (Dworkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]). More pronounced inequality values were observed after analysing the most cited articles. Only 1/3 corresponded to articles where a woman was the first author, which is in line with the predominant male trend (Bendels et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref95">4</reflink>]). Contrary to other fields such as ecology and evolutionary biology (Symonds et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref96">59</reflink>]), anaesthesiology (Pashkova et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref97">46</reflink>]), radiation oncology (Holliday et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref98">22</reflink>]), psychology (Geraci et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref99">16</reflink>]), surgery (Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]) or medicine (Ha et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref101">17</reflink>]), PE observed no gender differences in the <emph>h-index</emph>. Scholarly recognition and impact are necessary for promotion, and women in the PE discipline reached competitive scores similar to those of men. Nevertheless, a distance was observed between the woman with the highest impact score (<emph>h-index</emph> = 24) and the man with the highest impact score (<emph>h-index</emph> = 39). There is still room for improvement, but the biases mentioned should be overcome.</p> <p>Regarding male-female representation in the editorial teams of top PE journals, a mean value close to gender parity was observed (46.9% ♀). This data indicates that equality is in good health in this academic facet. It is worth noting that in two UK journals (<emph>Sport, Education and Society,</emph> and <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph>), women were overrepresented (> 65%). No similar data exists in other scientific disciplines, which reflecting a significant advance in gender equality in PE. This female overrepresentation could indicate that men holding the editor-in-chief position were aware of the gender bias in PE research and adopted an 'activist approach' to challenge it in their editorial boards. Of course, this is highly speculative, and more research is needed. Nevertheless, women were underrepresented (ranging 34% – 45%) in the other four journals, and to a greater extent in three US journals (<emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph>, <emph>Quest</emph>, and <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>). Only one previous study compared women's representation on the editorial boards of UK and US journals in psychiatry, and the findings showed no differences (Haffez et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref102">18</reflink>]). Geographical location, history of journals and/or bias-aware editor-in-chief could explain the difference.</p> <p>The most negative data was found in the editor-in-chief position, where women's representation was non-existent in the six journals analysed. This total inequality has also been previously observed in disciplines such as radiology (Jalilianhasanpour et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>]) and sport sciences (Martínez-Rosales et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]) and is in line with other highly underrepresented scientific disciplines such as medicine (Amrein et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>]) or surgery (Gallivan et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref106">15</reflink>]). Again, if more women enter the PE profession and become influential researchers/scholars, they will reach top positions in scientific journals and/or editorial offices, which can elect editors-in-chief.</p> <p>Although previous literature has not analysed the connections between the <emph>h-index</emph> and editorial board membership, data from this study point at some possible linkages. Researchers with a higher <emph>h-index</emph> are more present on the editorial committees of journals. Increasing the <emph>h-index</emph> not only depends on the increase in the number of publications, but also on citations (visibility). Given that scientific productivity is a key factor in academic promotion, mechanisms and contexts should be articulated to facilitate this growth among women (Radford et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref107">50</reflink>]). This might impact the presence of women in leadership positions at journals.</p> <p>At this point, what can be done? Based on recent recommendations (Abt et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>]; Ehrlich et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref109">10</reflink>]), several proactive strategies can be offered to help address gender diversity within editorial membership: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>) Transparency: little is known about the selection processes for editorial members. The publication of the criteria used for nomination would allow interested researchers to be more competitive to fit in these positions. 'These policies should be merit-based and highlighted while appointing editorial board members. Credentials of editors should be highlighted on the introductory pages of journals' (Haffez et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref111">18</reflink>], p. 7); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>) Unconscious barriers: editors could address potential implicit biases that may perpetuate an unwelcoming context for women; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>) Mentoring: the implementation of mentorship programs for early career females could empower them and help them reach the top positions; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref114">4</reflink>) Pipeline programs: editors could consider initiating their own programs to promote women interested in pursuing an academic career. The presence of female editors-in-chief could increase women's representation in editorial boards. For example, in surgery journals a direct relationship of female editors-in-chief with editorial board composition was observed. Moreover, editorial boards with the highest proportion of women had female editors-in-chief (Gallivan et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref115">15</reflink>]). Diverse and inclusive editorial boards could create a publishing environment that could reduce bias in how publications are selected and approved (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]). Increasing women representation may empower and support them to achieve their career aspirations (Ehrlich et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref117">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Women's underrepresentation in scientific research responds to a multifactorial cause (Hardcastle et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref118">20</reflink>]). From a general point of view, several arguments have been put forward. For example, the 'Matilda effect', which is a bias to recognize the achievements of female scientists whose work is often attributed to their male colleagues (Lincoln et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref119">38</reflink>]). In the same line, the 'leaking pipe' exemplifies the gradual decrease in the presence of women throughout the academic career (Schweitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref120">55</reflink>]). Certainly, fewer women enroll in PE and/or sport sciences' undergraduate, masters or PhD programs (Abt et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>]; Serra et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref122">57</reflink>]). This demographic inertia could also be partially explaining the problem (Serra et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref123">56</reflink>]). Beyond the barriers and difficulties that women encounter, solutions exist. Recently, three recommendations were put forward by Hardcastle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref124">20</reflink>], STEM disciplines) to broadening women participation: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>) improve women's professional networks, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref126">2</reflink>) realign policy documents and departmental practices to better reflect faculty values, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref127">3</reflink>) improve departmental climate. Producing significant improvements in women PE scientist recruitment must go beyond acknowledging the issues by enacting lasting effective strategies (Ehrlich et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref128">10</reflink>]). The three mentioned could be implemented in the field of PE, but also the administrations should push forward gender-equity policies and practices (e.g. laws to enforce women recruitment in editorial boards).</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-17">Weaknesses and future research</hd> <p>To our knowledge, this is the only study to analyse women's representation in high-quality PE research. However, it also holds several weaknesses that should be acknowledged and used to design future research. The first one is that this study assessed two relevant positions in the publications' authorship: the first author and the corresponding author, but not the senior author. According to Hall ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref129">19</reflink>], p. 43), 'the order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Because the order is assigned in different ways, its meaning cannot be inferred accurately'. Future studies should propose objective criteria for the precise definition of what a senior author is in PE and how to identify them in a multi-authorship document and, thus, be able to accurately analyse their gender and representation. Second, similar to previous research, the focus was directed to the analysis of high-quality articles and journals. Future studies should assess the possibility of broadening the focus towards intermediate and low-quality levels (including the grey literature) to offer a broader vision of women's representation in PE research. Third, as in previous research, this study analysed gender in a binary way (male-female). Future studies should consider this important aspect with the aim of increasing the visibility of LGBTQ+ researchers (Langin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref130">33</reflink>]; Sinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref131">58</reflink>]). They could provide valuable insights into gender imbalance in research. Fourth, this study did not consider the researchers' ethnic or geographical background either. Previous research conducted in other scientific disciplines showed that African-Americans are underrepresented in the editorial boards (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref132">13</reflink>]). In PE, the interaction gender and ethnicity will probably show even greater barriers for African-American women (Ryan & Dickson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref133">53</reflink>]), and it should be addressed in future studies. Fifth, this study did not analyse the gender of the journals' reviewers either. This information is not known. Future research should address the study of women's representation in this important scientific job in PE since it is also another role where women are usually underrepresented (Lerback & Hanson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref134">35</reflink>]). Sixth, due to the descriptive nature of this study design, we cannot provide insight into causation. Data only shows a 'photograph' of the reality, so it should be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to obtain a better understanding of publication rates of women and men, the write position, <emph>h-index</emph> or editorial membership. Moreover, qualitative approaches (e.g. Jowers & Curtner-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref135">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref136">30</reflink>]; Polkowska, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref137">48</reflink>]) could provide valuable information for understanding and interpreting descriptive data. Finally, we acknowledge grounding this study on the <emph>Journal Impact Factor</emph> and <emph>h-index</emph> prevalent metrics (Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref138">36</reflink>]). Authors such as van Helden and Argento ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref139">62</reflink>]) warned of the existing hate-love relationship with publication metrics. They suggested several ideas that should be considered in future studies in the venue of the one presented here: including middle-ranked journals, conferences or workshops, acknowledging the societal impact (including experts and stakeholders) and taking into account the content and the uniqueness of the research (not just the metrics).</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-18">Conclusions</hd> <p>Based on the data obtained from the top relevant journals in the PE field, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. There is a slight gender imbalance in the number of first authorships (41.6% ♀); 2. Female researchers are underrepresented (27.7%) in the top 1–2% of total contributions; 3. Only 29.62% of the articles cited more than 100 times had a woman as the first author; 4. No gender differences were found in the <emph>h-index</emph>; and 5. Women are close to be equally represented in the journals' editorial boards (46.7%), but they are not present (0%) as editor-in-chief.</p> <p>Women's underrepresentation in PE scientific research respond to a multifactorial cause like the 'Matilda effect', the 'leaking pipe', and the negative 'demographic inertia' (previously described). Several recommendations to broadening women participation have been highlighted: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref140">1</reflink>) improve women's professional networks, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref141">2</reflink>) realign policy documents and departmental practices, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref142">3</reflink>) improve departmental climate, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref143">4</reflink>) transparency, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref144">5</reflink>) work on unconscious barriers, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref145">6</reflink>) mentoring and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref146">7</reflink>) pipeline programs.</p> <p>Gathering and reporting data on male-female representation in PE research is a needed first step to move towards a more equitable scientific community. It should be a critical starting point to trace paths towards gender equity. Since gender disparities are evident, the first goal should be to implement the proactive strategies mentioned to increase the presence of female researchers in PE. Once this imbalance is overcome, and under conditions of equality, women-men representation in the other spheres mentioned in the article (e.g. first authorship, cites, board members, editor-in-chief) will not be an issue. Society needs committed researchers to solve substantial problems (e.g. COVID). It should not be overly concerned with the gender of the researcher. But until this imbalance is solved, it is still necessary to take steps in terms of equality before reaching a future scenario where this aspect will not be a problem, and the real focus of attention is placed, exclusively, on scientific progress, regardless of men, women, trans, etc., but we are still in an earlier phase.</p> <hd id="AN0163950471-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0163950471-20"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> JCR-Q1-Q2 journals.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0163950471-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abt, G., Boreham, C., Davison, G., Jackson, R., Wallace, E., & Williams, M. (2021). Equality, diversity, and inclusion: Policy statement. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39 (24), 2847 – 2849. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.1967608</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amrein, K., Langmann, A., Fahrleitner-Pammer, A., Pieber, T. R., & Zollner-Schwetz, I. (2011). Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gender Medicine, 8 (6), 378 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2011.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bendels, M. H., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PLoS One, 13 (1), e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Caplar, N., Tacchella, S., & Birrer, S. (2017). Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nature Astronomy, 1 (6), 0141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carr, P. L., Raj, A., Kaplan, S. E., Terrin, N., Breeze, J. L., & Freund, K. M. (2018). Gender differences in academic medicine: Retention, rank and leadership comparisons from the national faculty survey. Academic Medicine, 93 (11), 1694 – 1699. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R. M. (2021). Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Network Open, 4 (7), e2114509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref60" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dworkin, J. D., Linn, K. A., Teich, E. G., Zurn, P., Shinohara, R. T., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23 (8), 918 – 926. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehrlich, H., Nguyen, J., Sutherland, M., Ali, A., Gill, S., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2021). Gender distribution among surgical journals' editorial boards: Empowering women surgeon scientists. Surgery, 169 (6), 1346 – 1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, H., & Bucy, E. (2010). The representation of women in publication: An analysis of political communication and the international journal of press/politics. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43 (2), 295 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510000168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, H., & Moulder, A. (2011). Reflecting on a decade of women's publications in four top political science journals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44 (4), 793 – 798. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/41319969">http://www.jstor.org/stable/41319969</ulink>. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, E., Kaspar, W. A., & Seiden, P. (2017). Diversity of ACRL publications, editorial board demographics: A report from ACRL's publications coordinating committee. College & Research Libraries News, 78 (10), 548 – 551. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.10.548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, C. W., Duffy, M. A., Fairbairn, D. J., & Meyer, J. A. (2019). Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution, 9 (24), 13636 – 13649. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallivan, E., Arshad, S., Skinner, H., Burke, J. R., & Young, A. L. (2021). Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery journals. BJS Open, 5 (2), zraa064. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105 (3), 2023 – 2034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1757-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ha, G. L., Lehrer, E. J., Wang, M., Holliday, E., Jagsi, R., & Zaorsky, N. G. (2021). Sex differences in academic productivity across academic ranks and specialties in academic medicine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 4 (6), e2112404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haffez, D. M., Waqas, A., Majeed, S., Naveed, S., Afzal, K. I., Aftab, Z., Zeshan, M., & Khosa, F. (2019). Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 94, 152119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.152119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, G. M. (2013). How to write a paper (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardcastle, V. G., Furst-Holloway, S., Kallen, R., & Jacquez, F. (2019). It's complicated: A multi-method approach to broadening participation in STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38 (3), 349 – 361. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2017-0200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (46), 16569 – 16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holliday, E. B., Jagsi, R., Wilson, L. D., Choi, M., Thomas, C. R., & Fuller, C. D. (2014). Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration, and funding among U.S. academic radiation oncology faculty. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89 (5), 767 – 773. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16 (4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (9), 4609 – 4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivanović, L., & Ho, Y. S. (2019). Highly cited articles in the education and educational research category in the social science citation index: A bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 71 (3), 277 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1415297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., Tarbell, N. J., & Hylek, E. M. (2006). The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature — A 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 355 (3), 281 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa053910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jalilianhasanpour, R., Charkhchi, P., Mirbolouk, M., & Yousem, D. M. (2019). Underrepresentation of women on radiology editorial boards. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 16 (1), 115 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, A., Chisnall, R., & Plank, M. J. (2019). Gender and societies: A grassroots approach to women in science. Royal Society Open Science, 6 (9), 190633. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190633</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jowers, R. F., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2021a). "It's my time to ... fight some of these battles": The life history of an exemplary African American PETE faculty member. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1 – 10. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2021-0198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jowers, R. F., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2021b). 'She thought I was her gardener': The life history of one latino/hispanic American college basketball coach. Sport, Education and Society, 1 – 12. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1997982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, T., Wilson, M., Chung, K., Andrilla, C., Evans, D. V., & Cawse-Lucas, J. (2021). Gender differences in authorship of family medicine publications, 2002–2017. Family Medicine, 53 (6), 416 – 422. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2021.866524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, B. L., Lin, Y., & Dickstein, L. J. (2001). Women on the editorial boards of major journals. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 76 (8), 849 – 851. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200108000-00021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langin, K. (2020). LGBTQ researchers say they want to be counted. Science, 370 (6523), 1391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.370.6523.1391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504 (7479), 211 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerback, J., & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541 (7638), 455 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, J. M. (2014). Research productivity and research system attitudes. Public Money & Management, 34 (6), 417 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2014.962368</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus TM, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7 (3), 196 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2010.505518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, A., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42 (2), 307 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lockheed, M. E., & Stein, S. L. (1980). The status of women's research in educational publications. ETS Research Report Series, 1979, i – 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1979.tb01181.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez-Rosales, E., Hernández-Martínez, A., Sola-Rodríguez, S., Esteban-Cornejo, I., & Soriano-Maldonado, A. (2021). Representation of women in sport sciences research, publications, and editorial leadership positions: Are we moving forward? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24 (11), 1093 – 1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2021.04.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2105 – 2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metcalfe, S. (2018). Adolescent constructions of gendered identities: The role of sport and (physical) education. Sport, Education and Society, 23 (7), 681 – 693. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1493574</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metz, I., & Harzing, A. W. (2017). Gender diversity in editorial boards of management journals. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (4), 540 – 557. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.4.zqr540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, S. P., Reitz, K. M., Wessel, C. B., Neal, M. D., Corbelli, J. A., Hausmann, L., & Rosengart, M. R. (2019). A systematic review of gender-based differences in Hirsch index among academic surgeons. Journal of Surgical Research, 236, 22 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, E., Robinson, R., & Hoover, R. M. (2021). Women as first authors in key pharmacy journals: Analysis by publication type. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 61 (1), e26 – e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2020.08.037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pashkova, A. A., Svider, P. F., Chang, C. Y., Diaz, L., Eloy, J. A., & Eloy, J. D. (2013). Gender disparity among US anaesthesiologists: Are women underrepresented in academic ranks and scholarly productivity? Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 57 (8), 1058 – 1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pico, T., Bierman, P., Doyle, K., & Richardson, S. (2020). First authorship gender gap in the geosciences. Earth and Space Science, 7 (8), e2020EA001203. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polkowska, D. (2014). Why the scientific pipeline is still leaking? Women scientists and their work-life balance in Poland. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24 (1), 24 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2014.895133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preece, S., & Bullingham, R. (2022). Gender stereotypes: The impact upon perceived roles and practice of in-service teachers in physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 27 (3), 259 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1848813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radford, D. M., Parangi, S., Chao, T., & Silver, J. K. (2022). H-index and academic rank by gender among breast surgery fellowship faculty. Journal of Women's Health, 31 (1), 110 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raymond, J. (2013). Most of us are biased. Nature, 495 (7439), 33 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/495033a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossi, A. S. (1965). Women in science: Why so few? Science, 148 (3674), 1196 – 1202. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3674.1196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, I., & Dickson, G. (2018). The invisible norm: An exploration of the intersections of sport, gender and leadership. Leadership, 14 (3), 329 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016674864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santamaría, L., & Mihaljević, H. (2018). Comparison and benchmark of name-to-gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science, 4, e156. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweitzer, L., Ng, E., Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2011). Exploring the career pipeline: Gender differences in pre-career expectations. Relations Industrielles, 66 (3), 422 – 444. https://doi.org/10.7202/1006346ar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serra, P., Rey-Cao, A., Camacho-Miñano, M. J., & Soler-Prat, S. (2021). The gendered social representation of physical education and sport science higher education in Spain. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1879768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serra, P., Soler, S., Prat, M., Vizcarra, M. T., Garay, B., & Flintoff, A. (2018). The (in)visibility of gender knowledge in the physical activity and sport science degree in Spain. Sport, Education and Society, 23 (4), 324 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1199016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinton, M. C., Baines, K. N., Thornalley, K. A., Ilangovan, V., & Kurt, M. (2021). Increasing the visibility of LGBTQ+ researchers in STEM. The Lancet, 397 (10269), 77 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32626-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Symonds, M. R. E., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE, 1 (1), e127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topaz, C. M., & Sen, S. (2016). Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS ONE, 11 (8), e0161357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2020). Women in science. <ulink href="http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs60-women-in-science-2020-en.pdf">http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs60-women-in-science-2020-en.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Helden, J., & Argento, D. (2020). New development: Our hate-love relationship with publication metrics. Public Money & Management, 40 (2), 174 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1682353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classifcation systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 347 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Way, S. F., Morgan, A. C., Larremore, D. B., & Clauset, A. (2019). Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (22), 10729 – 10733. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817431116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, R. (1997). Trends in research in science education. Research in Science Education, 27 (2), 215 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wing, D. A., Benner, R. S., Petersen, R., Newcomb, R., & Scott, J. R. (2010). Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. Journal of Women's Health, 19 (10), 1919 – 1923. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position. EMBO Reports, 8 (11), 988 – 991. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zawacki-Richter, O., & von Prümmer, C. (2010). Gender and collaboration patterns in distance education research. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25 (2), 95 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680511003787297</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Damián Iglesias and Javier Fernandez-Rio</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref139"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1388443
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Are Women Equally Represented in High-Quality Physical Education Research? Evidence from 2000 to 2020
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Iglesias%2C+Damián%22">Iglesias, Damián</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9773-0813">0000-0002-9773-0813</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fernandez-Rio%2C+Javier%22">Fernandez-Rio, Javier</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1368-3723">0000-0002-1368-3723</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Sport%2C+Education+and+Society%22"><i>Sport, Education and Society</i></searchLink>. 2023 28(5):594-608.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Researchers%22">Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citations+%28References%29%22">Citations (References)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Women+Administrators%22">Women Administrators</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13573322.2022.2054793
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1357-3322<br />1470-1243
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Studies on gender gaps in research have reported several differences favoring males over females. Women scholars face many more barriers and biases in their professional career when compared to their men colleagues. This descriptive study aimed to provide, for the first time, a contemporary picture of women's representativeness in high-quality physical education research (JCR-Q1-Q2 journals) from 2000 to 2020. Based on prevalent metrics, the following specific research questions were used to guide the concern and direction of this gender-gap analysis: (RQ1) What is the women/men first authorship ratio? (RQ2) What is the women/men authors' ratio in the top 1-2% contribution? (RQ3) What are the women/men citation rates and "h-index" ratios? (RQ4) What is the women/men ratio in the roles of editor-in-chief or editorial board members? A total of 1,815 published articles from six top peer-reviewed journals ("European Physical Education Review, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Quest, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Sport, Education and Society") and their respective editorial board members (n = 258) were examined. A gender-gap analysis was conducted on four elements: first authorships, contributions, citations and "h-index," and editorial board membership. The results reported: (1) 41.6% of women first authorship; (2) 27.7% of the top 1-2% of total contributions were women; (3) 29.62% of articles with more than 100 citations were published by women as first authors; (4) no gender differences in "h-index" of the top 1-2% researchers; (5) no women held the editor-in-chief position; and (6) 46.9% of editorial team members were women. These findings show that women are still underrepresented in high-quality research in physical education, and they represent a critical starting point to trace working paths. Administrations should activate mechanisms to seek gender equality. In particular, gender-equity policies should be promoted in physical education research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1388443
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1388443
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13573322.2022.2054793
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 594
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Females
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citations (References)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Women Administrators
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Are Women Equally Represented in High-Quality Physical Education Research? Evidence from 2000 to 2020
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Iglesias, Damián
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fernandez-Rio, Javier
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1357-3322
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-1243
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Sport, Education and Society
              Type: main
ResultId 1