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. 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.
    2. Yufang Peng & Jin Shi & Marcelo Fantinato & Jing Chen, 2017. "A study on the author collaboration network in big data," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 1329-1342, December.
    3. Per Lunnemann & Mogens H. Jensen & Liselotte Jauffred, 2019. "Gender bias in Nobel prizes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-4, December.
    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. Tuba Bircan & Almila Alkim Akdag Salah, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Social Sciences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-17, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:osf:socarx:w34pr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:osf:socarx:ep5bx_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Mike Thelwall & Tamara Nevill, 2019. "No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1793-1801, December.
    14. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Lidia Puigvert & Marta Soler-Gallart & Ana Vidu, 2022. "From Bystanders to Upstanders: Supporters and Key Informants for Victims of Gender Violence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Josep Maria Argilés-Bosch & Yuliya Kasperskaya & Josep Garcia-Blandon & Diego Ravenda, 2025. "The interplay of author and editor gender in acceptance delays: evidence from accounting journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1939-1965, March.
    17. Alexander Tekles & Katrin Auspurg & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Same-gender citations do not indicate a substantial gender homophily bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, September.
    18. Hamid R. Jamali & Alireza Abbasi, 2023. "Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2879-2893, May.
    19. Aron Laxdal, 2023. "The sex gap in sports and exercise medicine research: who does research on females?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1987-1994, March.
    20. Anahita Hajibabaei & Andrea Schiffauerova & Ashkan Ebadi, 2023. "Women and key positions in scientific collaboration networks: analyzing central scientists’ profiles in the artificial intelligence ecosystem through a gender lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1219-1240, February.
    21. Xiaohong Wang & Jiyang Zhao & Ben Zhang, 2025. "The “leaky pipeline” in the academic growth: evidence from excellent young scientists of the NSFC," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 1129-1158, February.
    22. Anna Lupon & Pablo Rodríguez-Lozano & Mireia Bartrons & Alba Anadon-Rosell & Meritxell Batalla & Susana Bernal & Andrea G Bravo & Pol Capdevila & Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles & Núria Catalán & Ana Genua-Ol, 2021. "Towards women-inclusive ecology: Representation, behavior, and perception of women at an international conference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-18, December.

    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.