A paper just published in the British Journal of Surgery (Oxford) sourced innovative data from Dimensions AI, a large linked scientific publications dataset, and NamSor, our name gender classification tool, to explore the current state of gender diversity in global surgery – based on the top 1000 most published researchers.
Dimensions AI claims to be world’s largest linked research information dataset, with
- millions of research publications connected by more than 1.6 billion citations, supporting grants, datasets, clinical trials, patents and policy documents : 130m publications from 104k journals, 63 preprint servers and over 1.5m books;
- the most comprehensive research grants database which links grants to millions of resulting publications, clinical trials and patents : 6m grants worth more than 2.3 trillion USD from 644 funders worldwide;
- up-to-the minute online attention data via Altmetric, showing you how often publications and clinical trials are discussed around the world : 226m Altmetric mentions with 17m links to publications;
- policy documents with more than 2.2m links to publications show the societal impact of scholarly work : 878k policy documents;
- clinical trials ie. experiments or observations done in clinical research – Dimensions surfaces links to publications, resulting online mentions, and supporting grants : 724k clinical trials from 12 sources;
- millions of patents with links to other citing patents as well as to publications and supporting grants:148m patents from 426 countries.
To our knowledge, this is the first time Dimensions.AI is combined with NamSor as previously, researchers would apply NamSor enrichment to one particular database.
|type of dataset||alternative data sources||example of scientific publications using NamSor enrichment|
|research publications||PUBMED/PMC, ORCID, Scopus, DBLP, Web of Science.||Gender equity in health research publishing in Africa used PubMed with Namsor gender API; Skills Mapping Through Big Data: A case study of Armenian diaspora in the United States of America and France used ORCID with Namsor Diaspora API; Elsevier’s reports on gender in research used Scopus with NamSor gender API; A bibliometric approach for detecting the gender gap in computer science used DBLP with Namsor Gender API; Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas used Web of Science with Namsor gender API.|
|research grants||US National Spending Database||N/A : we are not aware of gender research on grant applications|
|social monitoring (altmetrix)||Twitter, Facebook, Medium, Factiva, Europress, Webz||N/A : we are aware of many use cases of Namsor for press review and social media listening (audience enrichment / clustering) but not in the context of science (altmetrix)|
|policy documents||N/A||N/A : we are not aware of gender research based on those data sources|
|clinical trials||N/A||N/A : we are aware of the use of Namsor by National Publich Health bodies in Europe during the COVID-19 for socioepidemiology – but no paper was published; also we are aware of new US directives to reduce gender or racial or ethnic biases in clinical trials.|
|patents||USPTO open data portal, WIPO, INPI France open data.||Discrimination against foreigners in the US patent system using USPTO Patent data enriched with NamSor origin and diaspora APIs; The demographics of innovation in the United States ; Gender and Innovation|
There has been a lot of scientific curiosity in exploring gender diversity accross many dimensions of science and technology, but so far researchers had to source the right database and link the data themselves. For example, linking researchers with their University of affiliation is sometimes complex – or even the identity resolution of homonyms and marital name changes can be a challenge.
Is global surgery really global? Evaluating global and gender diversity in global surgery research
Kashish Malhotra, Kashish Goyal, Sakshi Malhotra
British Journal of Surgery, znac328, https://academic.oup.com/bjs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjs/znac328/6712595?login=false
Published: 23 September 2022
Global surgery broadly refers to the multidisciplinary field concerned with providing better and equitable surgical care across international health systems, with a focus on capacity building, advocacy, education, research, and policy development in low-income (LIC) and middle-income (MIC) countries. With inclusive governance and quality improvement, it may help to prevent over 16 million deaths each year resulting from inadequate surgical, anaesthetic, and obstetric care1,2. A substantial onus lies on the global surgery researchers who play a key role in providing objective analysis to steer future policy development, especially if they are from a LIC or MIC with first-hand experience. This study explored sociodemographic trends among global surgery researchers and highlighted corresponding inequities.
The authors identified the top 1000 most published researchers by total number of publications for the search query ‘Global Surgery’ using Dimensions (https://www.dimensions.ai/), which has been studied as a comprehensive data source of the scientific literature. It was noted that several articles had the search term ‘global surgery’ in their discussion for comparisons but were not related to global surgery. Therefore, only publications that had this search term in their title or abstract rather than in the full text were included in the present analysis to increase the reliability and specificity of the findings. No language, time period, or geographical restrictions were set. The country of practice of researchers was identified from their affiliation in the associated research papers and/or ORCID, and then classified into HIC, upper MIC, lower MIC, or LIC according to the 2022 World Bank report. The gender of researchers was also identified using Namsor (https://namsor.app/).
Although the total annual number of publications on global surgery has been increasing since 2015, only 14 of the top 1000 researchers were from LICs and none of the top 100 researchers was from a LIC. Of the 763 researchers whose gender could be established with 95 per cent probability, 618 (80.9 per cent) were male and 145 (19.0 per cent) were female. Figure 1 highlights the countries of researchers, which spanned 31 of the 81 HICs (38.3 per cent), 27 of the 108 MICs (25.0 per cent), and 7 of the 28 LICs (25 per cent). The G-7 countries (USA, UK, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan) constituted 66.3 per cent of the total researchers and only 5.1 per cent were from the African continent. On average, a HIC researcher had a similar number of publications (mean 9.48 versus 7.87; P = 0.249) but a statistically higher total number of citations (424.24 versus 208.25; P < 0.001), and mean number of citations per publication (42.35 versus 30.74; P < 0.001) than researchers from LICs and MICs. In absolute terms, 866 HIC researchers had 8208 total publications with 367 388 citations, compared with 1055 publications with 27 905 citations among 134 researchers from LICs and MICs.
NamSor™ Applied Onomastics is a European vendor of sociolinguistics software (NamSor sorts names). NamSor mission is to help understand international flows of money, ideas and people. We proudly support Gender Gap Grader.
Illustration generated on DALL-E with caption : “A woman surgeon and a man surgeon operating together a complex surgery on a patient“