Search

Many studies have demonstrated the existence of simple, unidimensional socioeconomic gradients in body mass index (BMI). However, in the present paper we move beyond such traditional analyses by simultaneously considering multiple demographic and socioeconomic dimensions. Using the Spanish National Health Survey 2011–2012, we apply intersectionality theory and multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) to analyze 14,190 adults nested within 108 intersectional strata defined by combining categories of gender, age, income, educational achievement and living situation. We develop two multilevel models to obtain information on stratum-specific BMI averages and the degree of clustering of BMI within strata expressed by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The first model is a simple variance components analysis that provides a detailed mapping of the BMI disparities in the population and measures the accuracy of stratum membership to predict individual BMI. The second model includes the variables used to define the intersectional strata as a way to identify stratum-specific interactions. The first model suggests moderate but meaningful clustering of individual BMI within the intersectional strata (ICC = 12.4%). Compared with the population average (BMI = 26.07 Kg/m2), the stratum of cohabiting 18-35-year-old females with medium income and high education presents the lowest BMI (-3.7 Kg/m2), while cohabiting 36-64-year-old females with low income and low education show the highest BMI (+2.6 Kg/m2). In the second model, the ICC falls to 1.9%, suggesting the existence of only very small stratum specific interaction effects. We confirm the existence of a socioeconomic gradient in BMI. Compared with traditional analyses, the intersectional MAIHDA approach provides a better mapping of socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in BMI. Because of the moderate clustering, public health policies aiming to reduce BMI in Spain should not solely focus on the intersectional strata with the highest BMI, but should also consider whole population polices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper estimates the effect of students’ position in the classroom register on their academic performance. We use a unique dataset from Poland which contains information on the academic outcomes of students in the humanities, science and mathematics lower secondary school exams as well as the position students occupy in their classroom register. We find that students whose names are recorded near the end of the class list have lower performance than those students whose names are recorded near the beginning of the list. The effect appears to be larger for performance in the humanities exam, and for low-achieving boys who attend large classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement. Methods: A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted. Results: A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems. Discussion: No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and “luxury” indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Socioeconomically deprived children are at increased risk of ill-health associated with sedentary behavior, malnutrition, and helminth infection. The resulting reduced physical fitness, growth retardation, and impaired cognitive abilities may impede children’s capacity to pay attention. The present study examines how socioeconomic status (SES), parasitic worm infections, stunting, food insecurity, and physical fitness are associated with selective attention and academic achievement in school-aged children. Methodology: The study cohort included 835 children, aged 8–12 years, from eight primary schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The d2-test was utilized to assess selective attention. This is a paper and pencil letter-cancellation test consisting of randomly mixed letters d and p with one to four single and/or double quotation marks either over and/or under each letter. Children were invited to mark only the letters d that have double quotation marks. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed via the 20 m shuttle run test and muscle strength using the grip strength test. The Kato-Katz thick smear technique was employed to detect helminth eggs in stool samples. SES and food insecurity were determined with a pre-tested questionnaire, while end of year school results were used as an indicator of academic achievement. Principal findings: Children infected with soil-transmitted helminths had lower selective attention, lower school grades (academic achievement scores), and lower grip strength (all p<0.05). In a multiple regression model, low selective attention was associated with soil-transmitted helminth infection (p<0.05) and low shuttle run performance (p<0.001), whereas higher academic achievement was observed in children without soil-transmitted helminth infection (p<0.001) and with higher shuttle run performance (p<0.05). Conclusions/Significance: Soil-transmitted helminth infections and low physical fitness appear to hamper children’s capacity to pay attention and thereby impede their academic performance. Poor academic achievement will make it difficult for children to realize their full potential, perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty and poor health. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stephen M. Kosslyn is the Founding Dean of the Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute (one of the Claremont Colleges). He served as Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and was previously chair of the Department of Psychology, Dean of Social Science, and the John Lindsley Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. He was also Associate Psychologist in the Department of Neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital and co-director of the Mind of the Market Lab at Harvard Business School. He received a B.A. from UCLA and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, both in psychology. Kosslyn has authored or coauthored 14 books and over 300 papers, for which he has received numerous honors, including the US National Academy of Sciences Initiatives in Research Award, a Guggenheim Fellowship, three honorary Doctorates (University of Caen, University of Paris Descartes, Bern University), and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]