Peter F Svider1, Christine M D'Aguillo2, Priscilla E White2, Anna A Pashkova3, Neelakshi Bhagat4, Paul D Langer4, Jean Anderson Eloy5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. 3. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. Electronic address: jean.anderson.eloy@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender differences in individual National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and in funding totals exist in ophthalmology, and to further characterize whether factors such as experience, academic rank, and terminal degree play a role. DESIGN: A retrospective review of awards granted to primary investigators (PIs) in ophthalmology departments from 2011 through the present was conducted. PIs were classified by gender, degree, experience, and academic position. The NIH funding database was used to gather award data. SETTING: Academic medical center. RESULTS: Men had higher mean NIH awards ($418,605) than their female colleagues ($353,170; p = 0.005) and had higher total funding per PI (p = 0.004). Men had statistically higher awards at the level of assistant professor than their female counterparts (p < 0.05). A gender difference was statistically significant and most marked among researchers holding an MD (or equivalent) degree. When controlled for publication experience, men had higher NIH awards throughout their careers, although this difference only reached statistical significance on comparison of faculty with 10 or fewer years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Male PIs receiving grants since 2011 had higher awards than their female colleagues did, most markedly among PIs in the earlier portions of their career. Differences in gender representation among senior faculty and in positions of leadership in academic ophthalmology may be partially a result of disparities in research output, as scholarly productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process in ophthalmology.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender differences in individual National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and in funding totals exist in ophthalmology, and to further characterize whether factors such as experience, academic rank, and terminal degree play a role. DESIGN: A retrospective review of awards granted to primary investigators (PIs) in ophthalmology departments from 2011 through the present was conducted. PIs were classified by gender, degree, experience, and academic position. The NIH funding database was used to gather award data. SETTING: Academic medical center. RESULTS:Men had higher mean NIH awards ($418,605) than their female colleagues ($353,170; p = 0.005) and had higher total funding per PI (p = 0.004). Men had statistically higher awards at the level of assistant professor than their female counterparts (p < 0.05). A gender difference was statistically significant and most marked among researchers holding an MD (or equivalent) degree. When controlled for publication experience, men had higher NIH awards throughout their careers, although this difference only reached statistical significance on comparison of faculty with 10 or fewer years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Male PIs receiving grants since 2011 had higher awards than their female colleagues did, most markedly among PIs in the earlier portions of their career. Differences in gender representation among senior faculty and in positions of leadership in academic ophthalmology may be partially a result of disparities in research output, as scholarly productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process in ophthalmology.
Authors: Katherine B Santosa; Ellen L Larson; Bianca Vannucci; Jodi B Lapidus; Katherine M Gast; Erika D Sears; Jennifer F Waljee; Amy M Suiter; Cathy C Sarli; Susan E Mackinnon; Alison K Snyder-Warwick Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Sarah Chauvin; Benoit H Mulsant; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Valerie H Taylor; Simone N Vigod Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Jean Anderson Eloy; Michael Bobian; Peter F Svider; Ashley Culver; Bianca Siegel; Stacey T Gray; Soly Baredes; Sujana S Chandrasekhar; Adam J Folbe Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Mckenzee Chiam; Mona L Camacci; Erik B Lehman; Michael C Chen; Gargi K Vora; Seth M Pantanelli Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Alexander M Rusakevich; Nicholas J Protopsaltis; Rajesh C Rao; Daniel L Chao; Glenn Yiu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Sonia M Thomas; Jesmin Antony; Patricia Rios; Reid Robson; Reena Pattani; Marco Ghassemi; Shannon Sullivan; Inthuja Selvaratnam; Cara Tannenbaum; Sharon E Straus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 3.240