IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0274356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, an emerging paradigm of a gender egalitarian organisation

Author

Listed:
  • Stavroulla Xenophontos
  • Margarita Zachariou
  • Pavlos Polycarpou
  • Elena Ioannidou
  • Vera Kazandjian
  • Maria Lagou
  • Anna Michaelidou
  • George M Spyrou
  • Marios A Cariolou
  • Leonidas Phylactou

Abstract

Females are underrepresented in the science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) disciplines globally and although progress has been made, the gender gap persists. Our aim was to explore gender parity in the context of gender representation and internal collaboration at the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics (CING), a leading national biomedical organisation accredited as an equal opportunity employer. Towards this aim we (1) explored trends in gender parity within the different departments, positions and qualifications and in student representation in the CING’s postgraduate school and, (2) investigated the degree of collaboration between male and female researchers within the Institute and the degree of influence within its co-authorship network. We recorded an over-representation of females both in the CING employees and the postgraduate students. The observed female over-representation in pooled CING employees was consistent with a similar over-representation in less senior positions and was contrasted with an observed male over-representation in only one middle rank and culminated in gender equality in the top rank in employee hierarchy. In terms of collaboration, both males and females tended to collaborate with each other without any significant preference to either inter-group or intra-group collaboration. Further comparison of the two groups with respect to their influence in the network in terms of occupying the positions of highest centrality scores, indicated that both gender and seniority level (head vs non-head) were significant in shaping the authors’ influence, with no significant difference in those belonging in the same seniority level with respect to their gender. To conclude, our study has validated the formal recognition of the CING’s policies and procedures pertinent to its egalitarian culture through the majority of the metrics of gender equality assessed in this study and has provided an extendable paradigm for evaluating gender parity in academic organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavroulla Xenophontos & Margarita Zachariou & Pavlos Polycarpou & Elena Ioannidou & Vera Kazandjian & Maria Lagou & Anna Michaelidou & George M Spyrou & Marios A Cariolou & Leonidas Phylactou, 2022. "The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, an emerging paradigm of a gender egalitarian organisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0274356
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274356&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0274356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Per Lunnemann & Mogens H. Jensen & Liselotte Jauffred, 2019. "Gender bias in Nobel prizes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    2. Antonio De Nicola & Gregorio D’Agostino, 2021. "Assessment of gender divide in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3807-3840, May.
    3. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    4. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    5. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.
    6. Gabriela Fontanarrosa & Lucía Zarbá & Valeria Aschero & Daniel Andrés Dos Santos & María Gabriela Nuñez Montellano & Maia C Plaza Behr & Natalia Schroeder & Silvia Beatriz Lomáscolo & María Elisa Fanj, 2024. "Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Kwiek, Marek & Szymula, Łukasz, 2024. "Growth of Science and Women: Methodological Challenges of Using Structured Big Data," SocArXiv w34pr, Center for Open Science.
    8. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2024. "Gender bias in team formation: the case of the European Science Foundation’s grants," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 247-260.
    10. Sorana-Alexandra Constantinescu & Maria-Henriete Pozsar, 2022. "Was This Supposed to Be on the Test? Academic Leadership, Gender and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Denmark, Hungary, Romania, and United Kingdom," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Do gendered citation advantages influence field participation? Four unusual fields in the USA 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2133-2144, December.
    12. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    13. repec:osf:socarx:w34pr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    15. repec:osf:socarx:3fapz_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:osf:socarx:ep5bx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Erica L. Gallindo & Hobson A. Cruz & Mário W. L. Moreira, 2021. "Critical Examination Using Business Intelligence on the Gender Gap in Information Technology in Brazil," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-9, August.
    18. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Rashieda Davids & Pauline Scheelbeek & Nafiisa Sobratee & Rosemary Green & Barbara Häesler & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi & Suparna Chatterjee & Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy & Georgina Mace & Alan , 2021. "Towards the Three Dimensions of Sustainability for International Research Team Collaboration: Learnings from the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems Research Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    20. Victoria Bogdan & Delia Deliu & Tomina Săveanu & Olimpia Iuliana Ban & Dorina Nicoleta Popa, 2020. "Roll the Dice—Let’s See If Differences Really Matter! Accounting Judgments and Sustainable Decisions in the Light of a Gender and Age Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-31, September.
    21. Thamyres T. Choji & Manuel J. Cobo & Jose A. Moral-Munoz, 2024. "Is the scientific impact of the LIS themes gender-biased? A bibliometric analysis of the evolution, scientific impact, and relative contribution by gender from 2007 to 2022," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6023-6047, October.
    22. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    23. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0274356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.