scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Jens Peter Andersen

Bio: Jens Peter Andersen is an academic researcher from Aarhus University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Citation & Citation analysis. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 30 publications receiving 485 citations. Previous affiliations of Jens Peter Andersen include Aalborg University & University of Copenhagen.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jun 2020-eLife
TL;DR: The results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than theResearch productivity of men.
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These findings corroborate discussions of how women’s participation in medical science links to research outcomes, and show the mutual benefits of promoting both the scientific advancement of women and the integration of gender and sex analysis into medical research.
Abstract: Gender and sex analysis is increasingly recognized as a key factor in creating better medical research and health care 1–7 . Using a sample of more than 1.5 million medical research papers, our study examined the potential link between women’s participation in medical science and attention to gender-related and sex-related factors in disease-specific research. Adjusting for variations across countries, disease topics and medical research areas, we compared the participation of women authors in studies that do and do not involve gender and sex analysis. Overall, our results show a robust positive correlation between women’s authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis. These findings corroborate discussions of how women’s participation in medical science links to research outcomes, and show the mutual benefits of promoting both the scientific advancement of women and the integration of gender and sex analysis into medical research. Nielsen and colleagues’ analysis of a large database of medical research papers shows a correlation between women’s authorship and the likelihood of a study including gender and sex analysis.

151 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the inclusion of sex and/or gender in COVID-19 studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, collecting data for the period January 1, 2020 to January 26, 2021.
Abstract: Sex and gender differences impact the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality. Furthermore, sex differences influence the frequency and severity of pharmacological side effects. A large number of clinical trials to develop new therapeutic approaches and vaccines for COVID-19 are ongoing. We investigated the inclusion of sex and/or gender in COVID-19 studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, collecting data for the period January 1, 2020 to January 26, 2021. Here, we show that of the 4,420 registered SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 studies, 935 (21.2%) address sex/gender solely in the context of recruitment, 237 (5.4%) plan sex-matched or representative samples or emphasized sex/gender reporting, and only 178 (4%) explicitly report a plan to include sex/gender as an analytical variable. Just eight (17.8%) of the 45 COVID-19 related clinical trials published in scientific journals until December 15, 2020 report sex-disaggregated results or subgroup analyses.

70 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is found that the top 1% most-cited scientists have increased their cumulative citation shares from 14 to 21% between 2000 and 2015 and that the Gini coefficient for citation imbalance has risen from 0.65 to 0.70.
Abstract: Citations are important building blocks for status and success in science. We used a linked dataset of more than 4 million authors and 26 million scientific papers to quantify trends in cumulative citation inequality and concentration at the author level. Our analysis, which spans 15 y and 118 scientific disciplines, suggests that a small stratum of elite scientists accrues increasing citation shares and that citation inequality is on the rise across the natural sciences, medical sciences, and agricultural sciences. The rise in citation concentration has coincided with a general inclination toward more collaboration. While increasing collaboration and full-count publication rates go hand in hand for the top 1% most cited, ordinary scientists are engaging in more and larger collaborations over time, but publishing slightly less. Moreover, fractionalized publication rates are generally on the decline, but the top 1% most cited have seen larger increases in coauthored papers and smaller relative decreases in fractional-count publication rates than scientists in the lower percentiles of the citation distribution. Taken together, these trends have enabled the top 1% to extend its share of fractional- and full-count publications and citations. Further analysis shows that top-cited scientists increasingly reside in high-ranking universities in western Europe and Australasia, while the United States has seen a slight decline in elite concentration. Our findings align with recent evidence suggesting intensified international competition and widening author-level disparities in science.

68 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jul 2019-eLife
TL;DR: In this article, a matched case-control study of 1,269,542 papers in selected areas of medicine published between 2008 and 2014 was conducted and the authors found that papers with female authors are, on average, cited between 6.5 and 12.6% less than papers with male authors.
Abstract: A number of studies suggest that scientific papers with women in leading-author positions attract fewer citations than those with men in leading-author positions. We report the results of a matched case-control study of 1,269,542 papers in selected areas of medicine published between 2008 and 2014. We find that papers with female authors are, on average, cited between 6.5 and 12.6% less than papers with male authors. However, the standardized mean differences are very small, and the percentage overlaps between the distributions for male and female authors are extensive. Adjusting for self-citations, number of authors, international collaboration and journal prestige, we find near-identical per-paper citation impact for women and men in first and last author positions, with self-citations and journal prestige accounting for most of the small average differences. Our study demonstrates the importance of focusing greater attention on within-group variability and between-group overlap of distributions when interpreting and reporting results of gender-based comparisons of citation impact.

51 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: This research examines the interaction between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models and the state of art in the field of automatic transport systems in the CityMobil project.
Abstract: 2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

4,784 citations

01 Jun 2014
TL;DR: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 (SOFI) and 2 billion have some form of micronutrient malnutrition as discussed by the authors, which constitutes a crime against humanity and is a responsibility for all of us.
Abstract: Brian Thompson is a Senior Nutrition Officer at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is an intergovernmental organization, it has 191 Member Nations, two associate members and one member organization, the European Union. As a knowledge organization, FAO creates and shares critical information about food, agriculture and natural resources in the form of global public goods. FAO plays a connector role, through identifying and working with different partners with established expertise, and facilitating a dialogue between those who have the knowledge and those who need it. By turning knowledge into action, FAO links the field to national, regional and global initiatives in a mutually reinforcing cycle. Its mandate is to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living. What is the size of the malnutrition problem and what regions are most affected? There are persistently high levels of undernutrition. Nearly 870 million people in the world go to bed hungry (1 in 8 people) according to the recently released report of The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 (SOFI) and 2 billion have some form of micronutrient malnutrition – this constitutes a crime against humanity and is a responsibility for all of us. Prevalence of undernourishment in developing countries has declined over the past two decades, from 23 to 15 percent. In terms of total numbers in 1990– 92, around 980 million individuals were estimated to be undernourished. The number dropped to 901 million in 1999– 2001, to 885 million in 2006–06 and to 852 million in 2007–09. The financial crisis, economic downturn, persistent food price volatility, drought and other repercussions of climate change since 2006–08 may have prevented any further significant improvements in the number of people who are undernourished in developing countries since then. Africa has by far the highest prevalence, at around 23 percent in 2010–12 but though it is down from what it was in 1990–92 (27 percent) the numbers have risen from 175 million to 239 million with nearly 20 million added in the past four years. In subSaharan Africa, the modest progress achieved in recent years up to 2007 was reversed, with hunger rising 2 percent per year since then. In Asia, both prevalence and numbers dropped over the same period from 24 percent (739 million) to 14 percent (563 million). Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) boasts the lowest rate of undernourishment (8 percent) among developing country regions but the rate of progress has slowed recently. Countries considered as leastdeveloped countries and lowincome economies have the highest prevalence rates of all around 30 percent but down from the 40 percent levels of twenty years ago.

1,010 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The Difference as discussed by the authors is a landmark book about how we think in groups and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts, and how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts.
Abstract: In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities. The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup. Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all.

779 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This book not only helps you read a paper but tries to make you a better paper writer as well and fulfils its advertised aim of being a compressed introduction to the usefulness and potential applications of evidence-based medicine in the clinical setting.
Abstract: Do you need to read published papers? Or are you a scientific paper non-reader or recluse? This book (very thoughtfully) starts off by asking whether you need to read this book—how many textbooks actually ask you whether you need to use/read/buy it? The need for such a book is certainly there, as this excellent little book is intended to help existing readers read, and actually interpret, medical papers better. Current non-readers and scientific recluses may even be encouraged to open medical journals for once! The book provides an excellent practical and pragmatic approach to critical analysis of much of the uninspiring and unread published literature (which often makes you wonder how it got into print in the first place!). There is a systematic discussion on evidence-based medicine and a thoughtful practical section on how to search the medical literature. Despite the age of the Internet and computerised databases, even the most experienced Medline surfer often only manages to find approximately a third of the published material on a particular subject—handy tips are provided to improve searches, to increase one’s gain and to reduce eye strain or repetitive strain injury from a long, tiring session at the Medline computer terminal. The book describes the various sections of a published paper, including appraisal of the nature of the study and statistics for the non-statistician. It then discusses what you would hope to gain from reading a particular paper, including papers that report drug trials, diagnostic screening tests, systematic reviews and guidelines. It also has information on economic analyses and qualitative research. Finally, it gives some examples of how to implement evidence-based findings. Since much of clinical medicine is still not evidence-based, perhaps this goes some way to rectify this appalling state of affairs. I also found the Appendix with a checklist for finding, appraising and implementing evidence fairly helpful. Readers of this excellent book who are like me — struggling to understand much of the published literature and also to produce an intelligible published paper every so often—this book not only helps you read a paper but tries to make you a better paper writer as well. Perhaps my understanding of evidence-based medicine will improve after reading this book, and make me a better teacher and researcher. Perhaps it will make me reject more of the papers submitted to the journal I help edit! At the cost of £14.95, this book is an absolute bargain and it fulfils its advertised aim of being a compressed introduction to the usefulness and potential applications of evidence-based medicine in the clinical setting. I recommend it wholeheartedly as an obligatory read.

470 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student with condensed reviews, supplemented with References and Recommended Reading and Current World Literature.
Abstract: Each issue contains either two or three sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive coverage of all the key issues, including pathophysiology of hypertension, circulation and hemodynamics, and clinical nephrology. Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student with condensed reviews, supplemented with References and Recommended Reading and Current World Literature a thorough bibliography compiled from the top journals in the field.

464 citations