bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–02–22
fourteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Medical and biomedical research productivity in Bahrain: an analysis of gender differences and patterns over two decades.
  2. Publication metrics by rank: assessing musculoskeletal radiology faculty.
  3. The journey from congress to journal: publication patterns of ECR 2019 oral presentations.
  4. Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals.
  5. Relationship between Altmetric scores and traditional metrics in the anesthesiology literature.
  6. Evidence-based citation analysis of a health sciences journal collection.
  7. Barriers to orthopedic surgery research productivity in Saudi Arabia.
  8. The national survey of academic researchers: New facts and data.
  9. From h-index to hashtags: the modernization of research and publication metrics.
  10. Reframing medical student research beyond productivity: investing in mentorship.
  11. Women Are Unequally Represented Among Clinical Trial Leadership by Orthopaedic Subspecialty.
  12. Parenthood among Surgeons in the US: Balancing Scalpels and Strollers.
  13. The Status of Women in Academic Medicine, and Particularly in Neurosurgery, in a Developing Country, Türkiye.
  14. VCs unite to spur Chinese academic innovation.
  1. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1714436
    Medical and biomedical research productivity in Bahrain: an analysis of gender differences and patterns over two decades.
    Randah R Hamadeh, Enjy Khedr, Haitham Jahrami.
       Introduction: Gender disparities in medical and biomedical research productivity remain a critical issue globally, yet data from Arab countries, including Bahrain, are limited. This study examines gender differences in medical and biomedical research productivity in Bahrain over a two-decade period (2005-2024), focusing on publication rates, authorship patterns, journal quality, and collaboration trends.
    Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Scopus database, covering 5,445 publications from Bahraini institutions in the medical and biomedical fields. Data were filtered to include only articles and reviews. Books, conference papers, and retracted works were excluded. The variables included authorship positions (first, last, corresponding), journal quartiles, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and collaboration types (institutional, national, regional, international). Gender was determined based on the authors' names and institutional and professional profiles. Descriptive statistics, Student's t-tests, and chi-square tests were used to compare sex differences (p < 0.05).
    Results: The number of medical and biomedical publications in Bahrain increased fivefold from 2005 to 2024, comprising 80.1% of the articles and 12.8% of the reviews. Arabian Gulf University led institutional output (30.2% of total publications). Local journals accounted for 54.0% of the publications, with limited international visibility. Males from Bahrain dominated authorship (59.3% first, 68.3% last, 65.6% corresponding), whereas females comprised 36.0% of Bahraini authors on average. Male first authors from Bahrain were more prevalent in Q1 journals (58.3% vs. 41.7%) and international collaborations (40.7%). The female corresponding authors included more female Bahraini coauthors (mean 78.19% vs. 15.99% for males).
    Conclusion: Gender disparities in Bahrain's medical and biomedical research output underscore the need for targeted interventions to support female researchers, particularly in securing senior authorship and publishing in high-impact journals. Enhancing international collaboration and equitable resource allocation could further strengthen Bahrain's research landscape.
    Keywords:  Scopus; biomedical; disparity; gender; medical; research output; research productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1714436
  2. Skeletal Radiol. 2026 Feb 20.
    Publication metrics by rank: assessing musculoskeletal radiology faculty.
    Mahla Radmard, Brady K Huang, Edward Smitaman, David M Yousem, Donald L Resnick, Christine B Chung.
       OBJECTIVE: Academic promotion in radiology frequently depends on measurable indicators of scholarly productivity such as publications, citations, and h-index. While several radiologic subspecialties have reported benchmarks for academic output, standardized metrics specific to musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology remain unavailable. This study aims to establish national reference values for publication productivity among U.S. MSK radiologists across academic ranks.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of academic MSK radiology faculty in the United States was performed using Scopus data collected in October 2025. Variables extracted included the number of publications, total citations, and h-index. Descriptive statistics and percentile distributions were calculated across ranks (assistant, associate, and full professor). Comparative analyses by sex and rank were performed using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis).
    RESULTS: A total of 679 MSK radiologists from 93 academic institutions were included. Scholarly output increased progressively with academic rank (p < 0.001). Median publication counts were 5 for assistant, 15.5 for associate, and 77 for full professors; median citations rose from 38 to 222 to 1915, respectively, while median h-index values increased from 2 to 7 to 23. No significant sex differences were observed at the assistant or associate professor ranks. However, male full professors had higher citations and h-indices compared to female full professors (p = 0.04).
    CONCLUSION: This national analysis provides standardized, rank-specific results for publication productivity in MSK radiology. The percentile-based data offer reference points for self-assessment, departmental evaluation, and promotion considerations, and demonstrate the degree to which scholarly output increases with increasing academic rank.
    Keywords:  Academic promotion; Bibliometrics; Citations; Musculoskeletal radiology; h-index
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-026-05129-y
  3. Insights Imaging. 2026 Feb 16. 17(1): 44
    The journey from congress to journal: publication patterns of ECR 2019 oral presentations.
    Ali Salbas, Raşit Eren Büyüktoka, Murat Yogurtcu, Münevver İlke Kaya, Binnur Emre, Ali Murat Koc.
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the publication outcomes of oral presentations delivered at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2019 and examine factors influencing conversion to full-text articles; findings were also compared with ECR 2010.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1817 oral presentations from ECR 2019 were analyzed. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed/MEDLINE up to December 2023. For each matched article, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Google Scholar citations/year were recorded. Additional variables included country of origin, collaboration type, imaging modality, and study design. Statistical analyses used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
    RESULTS: Of 1817 oral presentations, 844 (46.5%) were published, with no significant difference from ECR 2010 (43%, p = 0.091). Abstracts originated from 71 countries, with Italy (16.5%) and China (15.5%) contributing the most. Publications appeared in 254 journals. Publication rates varied significantly by country (p < 0.001), with Switzerland (74.4%) and the Netherlands (68.8%) achieving the highest rates. When analyzed by continent, abstracts from Asia showed a significantly higher publication rate than those from Europe (52.3% vs. 43.6%, p = 0.001). Publication outcomes also varied significantly by imaging modality (p = 0.002) and subspecialty (p < 0.001). Breast imaging achieved the highest median JIF (4.9), whereas Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) demonstrated the highest median annual citation count (10.5).
    CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the ECR 2019 oral presentations achieved peer-reviewed publication, maintaining rates from 2010. The congress's contributor landscape has become more global, with greater participation from Asia. While traditional radiological fields remain prevalent, AI/ML abstracts demonstrated high citation rates. These findings reflect contemporary trends in radiological research.
    CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By analyzing the publication outcomes of ECR 2019, with comparisons to 2010 data, this study examines evolving global patterns in publication outcomes, offering insights to enhance the dissemination of radiological research.
    KEY POINTS: Converting oral presentations to publications remains challenging in radiological research. Nearly half of the ECR 2019 oral presentations were published, showing a modest, non-significant increase from ECR 2010. The congress has become increasingly global, with notable growth in participation from Asia. This study reveals radiology's evolving scientific landscape and current research priorities.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Congresses as topic; Journal impact factor; Publishing; Radiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-025-02198-w
  4. Elife. 2026 Feb 20. pii: RP90049. [Epub ahead of print]12
    Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals.
    Chaoqun Ni, Isabel Basson, Giovanna Badia, Nathalie Tufenkji, Cassidy R Sugimoto, Vincent Larivière.
      Women are particularly underrepresented as leading authors of papers in journals of the highest impact factor, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly 5000 active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers to journals of the highest impact (e.g., Science, Nature, or PNAS) and to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men when they do submit. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to high-impact journals because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their 'work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel' as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the 'work would fit better in a more specialized journal'. We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior.
    Keywords:  gender gap; impact factor; medicine; none; peer review; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90049
  5. Can J Anaesth. 2026 Feb 18.
    Relationship between Altmetric scores and traditional metrics in the anesthesiology literature.
    Jessica H Y Chu, Saeha Shin, Xue-Wei Lin, Philip M Jones.
       PURPOSE: Citation-based metrics are traditionally used to assess research impact, but they have limitations. In today's digital age, newer social-media-based metrics, such as Altmetric scores, may be important. An Altmetric score is generated on the basis of the amount of engagement a research article has on online media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). This study's objectives were to understand the relationship between the Altmetric score and article citation count/traditional metrics in the anesthesiology literature as well as to determine predictors of higher Altmetric scores.
    METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, we identified two sets of articles (the 100 top-cited articles and 100 articles selected at random) published in 2019 and 2020 for each of the top 5 general anesthesiology journals ranked by 2021 impact factor: Anaesthesia, the British Journal of Anaesthesia, the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Anesthesiology, and the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. Two independent researchers extracted data, including the citation count and Altmetric total and component scores. Following this, we performed correlation analyses between various parameters.
    RESULTS: The journal Anaesthesia had the highest impact factor and positive correlation between Altmetric score and article citation count (ρ = 0.46; P < 0.001). There was a moderate positive correlation between the citation count and the Altmetric score for all journals in the randomly selected group, with the exception of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. Greater X engagement was a good predictor relative to the other factors for a higher Altmetric score.
    CONCLUSIONS: For most anesthesiology journals studied, the Altmetric score showed a positive correlation with the citation count and impact factor. Altmetrics have the potential to show the social impact of research in anesthesia, but this is limited to X engagement. The Altmetric score is largely influenced by greater social media engagement on X.
    Keywords:  Altmetric; anesthesiology; bibliometrics; citation count; journal impact factor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-025-03065-4
  6. Med Ref Serv Q. 2026 Feb 16. 1-23
    Evidence-based citation analysis of a health sciences journal collection.
    Madeline Meschino, Gauri Naik, Laura Lipke.
      This study demonstrates how health sciences librarians can use citation analysis, COUNTER statistics, and interlibrary loan data to quantitatively evaluate journal collections across multiple health sciences programs. Unlike previous studies focusing on single professions, this research analyzed an entire health sciences college collectively. Results showed 90.5-100% of journals used by faculty for publication and citation were available in the library's catalog, validating the collection's value. These findings provide a framework for collection development, resource promotion, and budget justification. The methodology is particularly valuable for librarians managing collections serving multiple programs within health sciences institutions.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric study; citation analysis; collection development; health sciences; journals; nursing; occupational therapy; physical therapy; public health
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2026.2619784
  7. World J Orthop. 2026 Feb 18. 17(2): 113461
    Barriers to orthopedic surgery research productivity in Saudi Arabia.
    Abdulrahman Alaseem, Sara Alhomaidhi, Shahad Aljudi, Waleed Albishi.
       BACKGROUND: Research productivity is a cornerstone of academic medicine, driving evidence-based practice, innovation, and professional advancement. In surgical specialties such as orthopedics, active research engagement is essential to improving patient outcomes and advancing clinical techniques. However, despite notable progress in Saudi Arabia's medical research landscape, orthopedic research output remains limited and concentrated within a few institutions. Understanding the barriers that hinder orthopedic surgeons from conducting research is therefore crucial to strengthening national research capacity and aligning with Saudi Vision 2030's goal of fostering scientific excellence.
    AIM: To identify the barriers that limit research productivity among orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia and explore the goals and motivations influencing their engagement in research across different subspecialties and levels of practice.
    METHODS: We used a descriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative design, employing a structured online questionnaire distributed to 105 orthopedic surgeons across Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was adapted from validated tools and reviewed for validity. Participants reported practice patterns, research activity, and barriers to productivity. Associations between variables were analyzed using univariate and multivariate methods.
    RESULTS: A total of 105 orthopedic surgeons completed the survey. A statistically significant association was found between prior research experience and having served as a primary investigator within the past 5 years. Additionally, a highly significant association was found with co-authorship in the last 5 years (P < 0.001), as 52 participants (55.3%) had contributed as co-authors at least once. However, there was no significant association between prior research experience and factors such as allocated research time (P = 0.280), level of practice (P = 0.147), years in practice (P = 0.826), or the number of patients seen per week (P = 0.885). Univariate analysis revealed several barriers to research productivity: (1) Insufficient research time (71; 67.6%); (2) Lack of research assistants (57; 54.3%); (3) Inadequate research training (48; 45.7%); (4) Lack of funding (42; 40%); (5) Lack of research collaboration (39; 37.1%); (6) Lack of reward/incentive (38; 36.2%); and (7) No personal interest (20; 19.04%).
    CONCLUSION: Addressing protected time, support staff, and research training may enhance orthopedic research productivity. This study highlights key institutional and educational gaps that can guide policy reforms and strengthen national orthopedic research capacity.
    Keywords:  Orthopedic research; Orthopedic surgery; Research barriers; Research productivity; Research training; Saudi Arabia
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v17.i2.113461
  8. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(2): e0340642
    The national survey of academic researchers: New facts and data.
    Kyle Myers, Wei Yang Tham, Jerry Thursby, Marie Thursby, Nina Cohodes, Karim Lakhani, Rachel Mural, Yilun Xu.
      We introduce a new survey of professors at roughly 150 of the most research-intensive institutions of higher education in the US. We document seven new features of how research-active professors are compensated, how they spend their time, and how they perceive their research pursuits, which we organize under three themes. Earnings and inequality: (1) there is more inequality in earnings within fields than there is across fields; (2) institutions, ranks, tasks, and sources of earnings can account for roughly half of the total variation in earnings; (3) there is significant variation across fields in the correlations between earnings and different kinds of research output, but these account for a small amount of earnings variation. Research productivity and inputs: (4) measuring professors' productivity in terms of output-per-year versus output-per-research-hour can yield substantial differences; (5) professors' beliefs about the riskiness of their research are best predicted by their fundraising intensity, their risk aversion in their personal lives, and the degree to which their research involves generating new hypotheses. Research output choices: (6) older and younger professors have very different research outputs and time allocations, but their intended audiences are quite similar; (7) personal risk-taking is highly predictive of professors' orientation towards applied, commercially relevant research. An anonymized version of the data is publicly available at: https://tny.sh/nsar.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340642
  9. Can J Anaesth. 2026 Feb 19.
    From h-index to hashtags: the modernization of research and publication metrics.
    Alopi M Patel, Maryann C Turner, Edward R Mariano.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-026-03077-8
  10. Acad Med. 2025 Dec 06. pii: wvaf080. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reframing medical student research beyond productivity: investing in mentorship.
    Mary Rojas, Mabel Perez-Oquendo, Sonia Lobo.
      
    Keywords:  faculty development; medical student research; research training; scholarly mentorship; undergraduate medical education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvaf080
  11. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2026 Feb 17.
    Women Are Unequally Represented Among Clinical Trial Leadership by Orthopaedic Subspecialty.
    Eric Mao, Eve R Glenn, David Ryu, Brandon Chang, Dawn M LaPorte, Amiethab Aiyer.
       BACKGROUND: Although men substantially outnumber women in orthopaedic surgery, prior studies have demonstrated that authorship disparities persist even after adjusting for this imbalance. If comparable patterns occur in clinical trial leadership, they may hinder women's academic advancement in our field. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have examined proportional representation in this context.
    QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the proportion of woman-led clinical trials differ among orthopaedic subspecialties? (2) Are women proportionally represented as PIs after adjusting for the percentage of women in each specialty? (3) Is the proportion of woman-led orthopaedic clinical trials associated with other characteristics, such as trial location or type of intervention?
    METHODS: A retrospective analysis of orthopaedic surgery clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2025 was performed. Trials were manually reviewed for subspecialty relevance and PI identity. PI gender was determined via genderize.io, a validated online application that assigns a predicted gender to user-input names. Trials without orthopaedic surgeons as PIs and those with low-confidence gender predictions via genderize.io were excluded. Of the trials initially identified, 26% (1510 of 5842) met inclusion criteria, of which 55% (837 of 1510) were US-based and 42% (637 of 1510) were international studies. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of women PIs across nine orthopaedic subspecialities and five intervention types (procedural, device, drug, behavioral, and other). Chi-square tests were also used to compare representation in trial leadership across regions within the United States and across continents. A US-specific analysis utilized prevalence to participation ratios (PPRs) to assess whether there was equitable representation of women among trial leadership after normalizing to the underlying proportion of women surgeons in each subspecialty. These proportions were obtained by reviewing public websites to identify academic surgeons at institutions affiliated with orthopaedic residency programs. Subspecialties were considered to have underrepresentation of a gender when that gender led less than 80% of the trials expected based on its share of the workforce (PPR < 0.80) and overrepresentation when a gender led more than 120% of the expected trials (PPR > 1.20).
    RESULTS: Gender representation among trial leadership varied by subspecialty (p < 0.001), with pediatric orthopaedic trials demonstrating the highest proportion led by women (20% [19 of 95]) and sports medicine demonstrating the lowest (4% [7 of 172]). After adjusting for the underlying demographics of each subspecialty's workforce, women were proportionally underrepresented in foot and ankle (PPR = 0.20), trauma (PPR = 0.51), pediatrics (PPR = 0.58), hand (PPR = 0.38), shoulder and elbow (PPR = 0.795), oncology (PPR = 0.72), and sports medicine (PPR = 0.71) trial leadership. Women were overrepresented among trial leadership in spine (PPR = 1.27) and proportionally represented among hip and knee (PPR = 0.83) trial leadership. Gender representation varied by world region (p = 0.02), with Europe showing the highest proportion of women investigators (12% [45 of 378]) and "Other" regions (that is, those outside of Europe, Asia, and the Americas) showing the least (0% [0 of 27]). Representation also differed by study intervention (p < 0.001), with behavioral intervention trials having the highest proportion of women PIs (29% [12 of 41]) and device trials having the lowest proportion (6% [22 of 373]), and by study type (p = 0.03), as observational studies included a greater proportion of woman-led trials (11% [41 of 380]) than interventional studies (7% [82 of 1130]).
    CONCLUSION: As proportional underrepresentation of women in trial leadership is concentrated in specific subspecialties, PI development initiatives in these areas may have greater impact than generic, field-wide efforts. Understanding why some subspecialties have achieved proportional representation whereas others lag behind should be a priority for future work, as fields with proportional or higher-than-expected representation may provide models worth emulating.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improving the proportional representation of women in trial leadership roles ensures that research leadership in orthopaedics reflects the gender diversity of our workforce and our patients. Doing so may also help strengthen the academic pipeline for women orthopaedic surgeons.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003848
  12. J Am Coll Surg. 2026 Feb 19.
    Parenthood among Surgeons in the US: Balancing Scalpels and Strollers.
    Abdullah Altaf, Mujtaba Khalil, Miho Akabane, Zayed Rashid, Azza Sarfraz, Susan Tsai, Mary Dillhoff, Timothy M Pawlik.
       BACKGROUND: A surgical lifestyle may challenge the balance between professional responsibilities and personal life. We sought to define the impact of being a surgeon on the likelihood of parenthood.
    STUDY DESIGN: The American Community Survey (ACS) database was queried between 2018-2022 to investigate trends of parenthood among surgeons, non-surgeon physicians and the general US population. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with parenthood.
    RESULTS: Among 3,385 surgeons and 52,758 non-surgeon physicians, 50.6% versus 46.0% were parents, respectively (RR:1.10, 95%CI: 1.06-1.14). The US general population had a markedly lower prevalence of parenthood (RR:0.58, 95%CI: 0.57-0.58). Surgeons were more likely to be married (83.3% vs. 78.2% vs. 42.7%) and had higher annual income versus physicians and the US population ($390,000 [130,000-512,000] vs. $200,200 [86,200-400,000] and $36,100 [11,600-96,000], respectively; (p<0.05). On multivariable analysis, surgeons had 12% higher odds of having children versus non-surgeon physicians (OR:1.12, 95%CI: 1.02-1.23). Among surgeons, being married (OR:11.69 [95%CI: 5.41-17.29]) and higher income (per $10,000 increase; OR:1.02 [95%CI: 1.01-1.03]) were associated with higher odds of parenthood while female sex (OR: 0.71 [95%CI:0.58-0.79]) was associated with lower odds. Female surgeons earned a lower annual income ($288,800 [84,000-486,000] vs. $406,000 [148,000-525,000]), worked more hours per week (57.0 hours [20.8] vs. 50.2 hours [23.9]), and were less often married (67.7% vs. 86.7%) versus male surgeons (p<0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons had a higher likelihood of parenthood versus non-surgeon physicians and the general US population. The odds of being a parent varied based on sex, marital status, and annual income. Female surgeons were less likely to be a parent while working longer hours and earning a lower annual income.
    Keywords:  American Community Survey; Marriage; Non-surgeon Physicians; Parenthood; Surgeons
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000001865
  13. World Neurosurg. 2026 Feb 14. pii: S1878-8750(26)00084-7. [Epub ahead of print] 124869
    The Status of Women in Academic Medicine, and Particularly in Neurosurgery, in a Developing Country, Türkiye.
    Ayfer Aslan, Erkut B Bulduk.
       OBJECTIVE: Women have always faced inequality in academic medical careers in Türkiye as well as the rest of the world. However, to date, no definitive data has been published regarding the representation rate of women in academic medicine in Türkiye. The aim of this study is to reveal the status of women in faculty and leadership positions in academic medicine in Türkiye.
    METHODS: This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted through websites of the Council of Higher Education (YOK) in Türkiye and medical faculties accredited by YOK as of October 2025.
    RESULTS: There were 132 medical schools in Türkiye. Women constituted 41% of all faculty members, 37% of professors, 42% of associate professors, 44% of assistant professors, 57% of lecturers, and 50% of residents in medical faculties in Türkiye. Among leadership positions, there were 26 (21%) women deans, and 98 (46%) women vice deans. Women comprised 35% of the faculty administrative committees and 35% of faculty boards. 25% of chairpersons of medical sciences divisions, and 35% of department heads were women. Regarding women in Neurosurgery, only 6% (n=25) of faculty and 5% (n=5) of department heads in neurosurgery were women. Among neurosurgery faculty, women comprised only 2% (n=3) of full professors, 6% (n=5) of associate professors, 9% (n=14) of assistant professors, and 27% (n=3) of lecturers. There were 45 (28%) female residents in neurosurgery.
    CONCLUSIONS: Gender equity has not yet been achieved in academic medicine in Türkiye. More effective policies promoting gender equality should be implemented by the authorities.
    Keywords:  Academic medicine; Equity; Faculty; Gender; Leadership; Neurosurgery; Women
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2026.124869
  14. Nat Biotechnol. 2026 Feb;44(2): 166
    VCs unite to spur Chinese academic innovation.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03031-5
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒02‒26 at 0:44.