ABSTRACT
Introduction
Despite the increasing representation of women in the dental profession, gender inequality remains in academic leadership roles. This study aimed to evaluate the gender distribution of academics and deans working in dental faculties in Türkiye.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective cross‐sectional analysis was conducted using publicly available data from 154 dental faculties (73 state and 81 foundation) between January and March 2025. Information was collected from 3061 academics, including their gender, academic title, specialty, and university affiliation. Gender classification was confirmed using the records of the Council of Higher Education and cross‐validated using the Gender API and NamSor software. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics (version 23).
Results
Among participants, 62.3% were women and 37.7% were men. Notably, women outnumbered men in nearly all academic ranks, with the highest proportion observed among lecturers (76.5%). Most professors were also women (51.5%), highlighting a remarkable shift in traditional academic gender dynamics. The gender distribution varied across disciplines: women were predominant in pedodontics (80.5%) and restorative dentistry (70%), while men were predominant in oral surgery (62.5%) and implantology (83.3%). In contrast, only 25.8% of deans were women, indicating persistent underrepresentation in high‐level administrative positions. Gender detection tools showed high concordance with the actual data (Cohen's κ > 0.91).
Conclusion
Although women represent the majority of academics in Turkish dental faculties, a significant gender gap remains in the top leadership roles. Institutional policies and targeted mentorship programs are needed to promote gender equity in academic advancement and decision‐making.
Keywords: academic leadership, dental faculties, dentistry departments, gender equity, gender inequality, leaky pipeline
1. Introduction
According to the World Health Organization, gender is defined by the roles, behaviours, norms, and relationships that are socially constructed and associated with women, men, girls, and boys, which vary across societies and can change over time [1]. The concept of gender equality emerged two centuries ago to ensure that women in society have equal rights, including the right to vote, education, health, employment, and political participation [2]. Gender inequality persists in various sectors of contemporary society, including science [3]. One of the least represented groups in academia is women, who continue to face significant challenges in achieving gender equality across disciplines and leadership roles. The primary barriers to women's advancement in leadership are the lack of role models and mentorship, limited peer support, and systemic inequities in the executive selection processes [4].
Although men have traditionally predominated in health professions, including dentistry [5], the number of women in the dental profession is increasing significantly, and this imbalance is shifting in favour of women. According to Women Dentists Worldwide, a division of the Federation Dentaire Internationale, over 60% of dentists in Europe are women [6]. In 2019, data indicated that women constituted 65% of graduates from dentistry programs in Spain, with analogous data reported for Germany [7], as well as the United States and Canada [8]. In Türkiye, it was observed that of the students enrolled in dental faculties in the 2024–2025 academic year, 24 988 (58.9%) were women and 17 414 (41.1%) were men [9].
Although the number of women graduating and practicing in the fields of medicine and dentistry is increasing, their representation in managerial and academic leadership positions remains inadequate, despite their growing presence in the dental workforce [3]. While initiatives aimed at advancing gender equality have intensified over the past decade, women continue to be markedly underrepresented in leadership positions. This underrepresentation is evident in roles such as presidents and executive directors of professional organisations, chief editors of scientific journals, department heads, and deans of dental faculties [10].
In the dental profession, each role has the potential to impact various facets of the field significantly. Notably, the position of dean is at the apex of academic leadership. Through their responsibilities, deans can profoundly influence not only the governance of their institutions but also the broader dental profession [11, 12]. It is indisputable that the principles of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion are vital when selecting individuals for prominent roles. Nonetheless, historical patterns reveal that these principles have not consistently been implemented. While the proportion of young women academics has been consistently increasing, it seems that fewer women advance in the academic hierarchy compared to their male counterparts [13]. The distinctions become increasingly evident in the context of advanced academic positions, such as associate and full professorships, as well as senior administrative roles, such as department chairs, associate deans, and deans [14].
The literature on women's representation in dentistry is limited. Although studies have evaluated gender equality, a significant gap remains in assessing women's representation in academia in Türkiye [3, 15, 16]. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the representation of women among academics at all dental faculties in Türkiye and examine the influence of women in senior management positions in Turkish higher education, the extent to which they are represented among academic staff, and how these positions are distributed across different units.
2. Materials and Methods
This study conducted a retrospective gender analysis of academics and deans working in dental faculties at state (public) and foundation (private) universities in Türkiye. Since all information is publicly available, this study did not require approval from the ethics committee.
2.1. Data Collection
The data were collected between January 1 and March 1, 2025. Publicly available data were used to determine the academic positions and departments of deans and academics at all state and foundation universities. The names, titles, academic positions, genders, and departments of all academics were collected using data registered on the website of the Turkish Council of Higher Education [9], with the records for each university examined individually. A total of 154 universities registered with the Turkish Council of Higher Education offer a dentistry program: 73 state universities and 81 foundation universities. If a university offered different dentistry programs (e.g., English and Turkish language programs) with the same academic staff, only one was included in the data to avoid duplication. A total of 3061 academics working in dentistry programs were identified, and their names, genders, universities, dental faculty departments, titles, and university types (state or foundation) were recorded.
To identify the deans of the dental faculties, an online search was conducted of universities registered with the Turkish Council of Higher Education that offer a dentistry program. The names, genders, affiliated universities, titles, departments, and types of universities (state or foundation) for the 93 identified deans were recorded.
2.2. Gender Detection
By examining the data of academics registered with the Turkish Council of Higher Education, gender was identified with 100% accuracy. To evaluate the accuracy of the gender detection tools, we also utilised the gender detection software Gender API (https://gender‐api.com/tr) and NamSor (https://namsor.app/), which showed the highest accuracies in a previous study evaluating the effectiveness of four different gender detection tools [17]. We compared the accuracy of the gender detection tools with definitive results obtained from the Turkish Council of Higher Education.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
The data were analysed using SPSS Statistics (version 23; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with a p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Agreement between actual and inferred genders was examined using Cohen's κ. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Associations between categorical variables were analysed using Fisher's exact tests with Monte Carlo approximation and Pearson's chi‐square tests with Yates' continuity correction. Continuous variables were compared between groups using Z‐tests with Bonferroni correction.
3. Results
In our dataset (Table 1), 5.4% of the participants held the title of lecturer, 43.4% held the title of assistant professor, 22.2% of academics held the title of associate professor, and 29.0% held the title of professor. Additionally, 71.3% of the participants worked at state universities, and 28.7% worked at foundation universities. Moreover, 62.3% of the participants were women, and 37.7% were men. Regarding dentistry departments, oral pathology (0.2%) and implantology (0.2%) were the least represented among participants, and prosthodontics (17.9%) was the most represented.
TABLE 1.
Descriptive statistics.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Title | ||
| Associate Professor | 680 | 22.2 |
| Assistant Professor | 1328 | 43.4 |
| Lecturer | 166 | 5.4 |
| Professor | 887 | 29 |
| Status of affiliation | ||
| State University | 2181 | 71.3 |
| Foundation University | 880 | 28.7 |
| Gender API gender | ||
| Women | 1809 | 59.6 |
| Men | 1224 | 40.4 |
| NamSor gender | ||
| Women | 1811 | 59.2 |
| Men | 1250 | 40.8 |
| Real gender | ||
| Women | 1906 | 62.3 |
| Men | 1155 | 37.7 |
| Dentist | ||
| Non‐dentist | 109 | 3.6 |
| Dentist | 2948 | 96.4 |
According to the Gender API software, 59.6% of the participants were women and 40.4% were men. According to the NamSor software, 59.2% of the participants were women and 40.8% were men. The level of agreement between the participants' actual and inferred gender was very high for both Gender API (Cohen's κ = 0.927, p < 0.001) and NamSor (Cohen's κ = 0.912, p < 0.001; Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Examination of the relationship between actual gender and Gender API‐NamSor gender detection tools.
| Real gender | Cohen's κ | p * | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | |||||||
| Gender API | ||||||||
| Women | 1795 (95.2) | 14 (1.4) | 0.927 | < 0.001 | 95.2% | 98.8% | 99.2% | 92.6% |
| Men | 91 (4.8) | 1133 (98.8) | ||||||
| NamSor | ||||||||
| Women | 1794 (94.1) | 17 (1.5) | 0.912 | < 0.001 | 94.1% | 98.5% | 99.1% | 91% |
| Men | 112 (5.9) | 1138 (98.5) | ||||||
Cohen's κ.
The proportion of women among the associate professors was 62.1%, while the proportion of men was 37.9%. Among assistant professors, 67.8% were women and 32.2% were men. Among lecturers, 76.5% were women and 23.5% were men. A statistically significant association was identified between academic title and biological sex (p < 0.001) (Table 3). Indeed, academic title differed significantly by actual gender (p < 0.001) and the gender inferred by the Gender API and NamSor software (p < 0.001). Additionally, the university affiliation was significantly influenced by gender (p = 0.039, Table 4).
TABLE 3.
Examination of the relationship between academic titles and genders.
| Associate professor | Assistant professor | Lecturer | Professor | Test statistic | p * | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender API gender | ||||||
| Women | 402 (59.7)a | 860 (65.3)ab | 121 (72.9)b | 426 (48.5)c | 75.047 | < 0.001 |
| Men | 271 (40.3)a | 456 (34.7)ab | 45 (27.1)b | 452 (51.5)c | ||
| NamSor gender | ||||||
| Women | 395 (58.1)a | 863 (65)b | 121 (72.9)b | 432 (48.7)c | 72 070 | < 0.001 |
| Men | 285 (41.9)a | 465 (35)b | 45 (27.1)b | 455 (51.3)c | ||
| Real gender | ||||||
| Women | 422 (62.1)a | 900 (67.8)ab | 127 (76.5)b | 457 (51.5)c | 75.048 | < 0.001 |
| Men | 258 (37.9)a | 428 (32.2)ab | 39 (23.5)b | 430 (48.5)c | ||
Note: n (%), a‐cThere is no difference between groups with the same letter.
Pearson's Chi‐square test.
TABLE 4.
Examination of the relationship between status of affiliation and genders.
| Status of affiliation | Test statistic | p * | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State University | Foundation University | |||
| Gender API gender | ||||
| Women | 1266 (58.5) | 543 (62.6) | 4.289 | 0.038 |
| Men | 899 (41.5) | 325 (37.4) | ||
| NamSor gender | ||||
| Women | 1264 (58) | 547 (62.2) | 4.587 | 0.032 |
| Men | 917 (42) | 333 (37.8) | ||
| Real gender | ||||
| Women | 1333 (61.1) | 573 (65.1) | 4.259 | 0.039 |
| Men | 848 (38.9) | 307 (34.9) | ||
Pearson's Chi‐Square Test; n (%).
The proportion of women among academics working at dental faculties, both among non‐dentists and dentists, did not differ significantly by gender, despite the number of women being higher according to both actual and inferred gender (p > 0.05).
In dental faculties at state universities, the proportion of women was 71.0% among non‐dentists and 60.8% among dentists. Although women outnumbered men according to both actual and inferred gender, the proportions did not differ significantly between women and men among both dentists and non‐dentists across universities (p > 0.05).
In dental faculties at foundation universities, the proportion of women was 53.2% among non‐dentists and 65.8% among dentists. Similar to state universities, with women outnumbering men, the proportions did not differ significantly between women and men among both dentists and non‐dentists across universities (p > 0.05).
Dentistry department affiliation was significantly associated with both actual and inferred gender (p < 0.001). The proportion of women was greater than that of men in all departments except the departments of maxillofacial surgery and oral implantology (Table 5).
TABLE 5.
Examination of the relationship between real gender and dentistry departments.
| Real gender | NamSor gender program | Gender API gender program | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | ||
| Dentistry departments | |||||||
| Oral and maxillofacial surgery | 147 (37.5)a | 245 (62.5)a | 145 (37)a | 247 (63)a | 141 (36.2)a | 248 (63.8)a | < 0.001* |
| Endodontics | 215 (60.4)b | 141 (39.6)b | 204 (57.3)b | 152 (42.7)b | 206 (58)b | 149 (42)b | |
| Restorative dentistry | 238 (70)bc | 102 (30)bc | 227 (66.8)bc | 113 (33.2)bc | 229 (67.6)bc | 110 (32.4)bc | |
| Orthodontics | 209 (64.9)b | 113 (35.1)b | 194 (60.2)b | 128 (39.8)b | 196 (61.8)b | 121 (38.2)b | |
| Pedodontics | 281 (80.5)c | 68 (19.5)c | 268 (76.8)c | 81 (23.2)c | 267 (77.2)c | 79 (22.8)c | |
| Periodontology | 227 (62.4)b | 137 (37.6)b | 213 (58.5)b | 151 (41.5)b | 211 (58.6)b | 149 (41.4)b | |
| Prosthodontics | 322 (61.2)b | 204 (38.8)b | 308 (58.6)b | 218 (41.4)b | 307 (58.9)b | 214 (41.1)b | |
| Oral and maxillofacial radiology | 183 (66.3)b | 93 (33.7)b | 171 (62)b | 105 (38)b | 172 (63.2)b | 100 (36.8)b | |
| Oral pathology | 5 (71.4)abc | 2 (28.6)abc | 5 (71.4)abc | 2 (28.6)abc | 5 (71.4)abc | 2 (28.6)abc | |
| Oral implantology | 1 (16.7)ab | 5 (83.3)ab | 1 (16.7)ab | 5 (83.3)ab | 1 (16.7)ab | 5 (83.3)ab | |
| Others | 78 (63.9)b | 44 (36.1)b | 75 (61.5)bc | 47 (38.5)bc | 74 (61.7)bc | 46 (38.3)bc | |
Note: n (%), a‐cThere is no difference between groups with the same letter.
Monte Carlo corrected Fisher's exact test.
Academic position was not significantly associated with actual or inferred gender (p > 0.05). According to the Gender API, among those who were Deans, 24.6% were women and 75.4% were men. Among the acting deans, 15.4% were women and 84.6% were men. According to NamSor, 25.8% of deans were women and 74.2% were men. Among the acting deans, 15.4% were women and 84.6% were men. Finally, in terms of all gender, among Deans, the proportion of women is 25.8% and men is 74.2%. Among the acting deans, 15.4% were women and 84.6% were men.
4. Discussion
Our study provides a comprehensive and up‐to‐date analysis of the gender distribution among academics and deans in dental faculties at Turkish universities. Our findings reveal that although women constitute the majority of academic staff (62.3%), their representation is significantly lower in senior academic and administrative positions, such as full professorships and deanships, where men still predominate. Our results are consistent with the international literature, indicating that the ‘leaky pipeline’ phenomenon remains a global concern in academic dentistry [18].
In Türkiye, a high proportion of academics in dental faculties are women, reaching approximately 62%–63%, which demonstrates a clear trend of feminization within the dental profession. In this regard, Türkiye presents a notable example in which gender parity, at least in numerical terms, is visibly achieved at the academic level.
However, international comparisons have highlighted the persistent underrepresentation of women in senior academic and leadership positions. In countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany, the proportion of deans in dental schools who are women remains disproportionately low. For instance, recent analyses have shown that the proportion of dental school deans who are men is 76% in the United States, 97% in Germany, and 100% in Japan, highlighting the enduring gender gap in leadership roles worldwide [19].
A similar pattern has been reported in dental schools in North America. Although the number of dental graduates who are women has surpassed that of men, men still predominantly hold leadership positions such as department chairs and deanships [8]. Our findings mirror this imbalance, as only 25.8% of current deans in Türkiye are women. Comparable underrepresentation of women was also observed in Spain, where Hernández‐Ruiz et al. [7] reported that despite a high proportion of graduates in dentistry being women, only 18% of leadership positions were held by women. This persistent underrepresentation suggests systemic barriers beyond mere enrolment or entry into academia.
The significant gender disparity observed in the surgical and oral implantology departments, where men predominate markedly, aligns with findings from previous studies. For instance, Koka et al. [12] emphasised that technical and surgical intensive specialties within dentistry tend to have fewer women, likely due to implicit gender biases, lack of mentorship, and family–career conflict perceptions. Similarly, our study observed that women were significantly underrepresented in surgical departments (37.5%) compared to other fields, such as paediatric dentistry (80.5%) and radiology (66.3%).
When comparing academic titles, it is notable that women dominate at lower academic ranks, especially among lecturers (76.5%) and assistant professors (67.8%). In contrast, the gap narrows among associate professors (62.1%) and reverses among full professors (48.5%). This trend was not unique to Türkiye. In their analysis of dental schools in the United States, Bompolaki et al. [10] found a similar disproportion: although 45% of faculty members were women, only 23% held a full professorship, and even fewer held deanships. Such discrepancies are likely influenced by institutional structures that reward continuity, seniority, and leadership ambitions, which have historically been less accessible or encouraged for women in academic paths.
In our study, the use of the Gender API and NamSor gender detection software was crucial in verifying the gender classification, as direct institutional identifiers might be limited in future studies. Inferences from both software showed high concordance with the actual gender obtained from the Turkish Council of Higher Education, with Cohen's κ values exceeding 0.91. This high level of inference accuracy is consistent with previous evaluations. For instance, a comparative study examining name‐to‐gender inference tools found that the Gender API and NamSor software achieved classification accuracies above 95% in multilingual datasets, including European contexts, particularly when full names and country metadata were provided [17]. Therefore, these tools are highly reliable for analysing gender representation in public institutional datasets.
However, these tools do have limitations, especially when it comes to names from East Asian cultures. A follow‐up analysis evaluated the accuracy of gender detection tools in predicting gender from Chinese names written in Pinyin, revealing that NamSor had an error rate of 43%–53%, whereas Gender API performed even worse, with error rates exceeding 65% [20]. These findings suggest that while such tools perform well in European and Turkish datasets, their generalizability to global analyses is limited without cultural and linguistic adaptation. Therefore, our study's confirmation of the high validity of gender detection tools within a Turkish dataset provides important empirical support for their continued use in similar national contexts, especially in public health and higher education gender studies.
A strength of our study is its inclusion of all dental faculties in Türkiye (N = 154), with meticulous data extraction and cross‐verification. Few studies in the dental literature have covered such a broad academic landscape with this level of granularity. Furthermore, while most international studies have focused on representation within a subset of universities or associations, our study encompasses both state and foundation universities, increasing its generalizability.
However, our study had several limitations that warrant discussion. Firstly, the cross‐sectional design limited our ability to assess the progression of gender dynamics over an extended period. Therefore, future studies should aim to evaluate temporal changes over the past few decades to better understand whether the representation of women is improving or stagnating. Secondly, although we included all academic titles, we did not evaluate publication productivity, research funding success, or participation in editorial boards, factors that also reflect academic influence and visibility. Indeed, Simon et al. and Ioannidou and Rosania [3, 13] have shown that publication and editorial inequalities persist among women in dentistry, even when their overall representation seems adequate.
From a policy perspective, our findings emphasise the need to implement structural reforms that promote gender equity in academic promotion and leadership. These reforms may include formal mentorship programs, leadership training initiatives for early career women, and transparent promotion criteria that reward not only research output but also teaching and service. As suggested by Jacobson et al. [11] deanship pathways can be demystified and broadened through intentional inclusion policies, fostering a more balanced academic future.
5. Conclusion
Our study is one of the most comprehensive investigations evaluating the gender distribution of academic titles and administrative positions in dental faculties in Türkiye. Our findings revealed that women constitute a clear majority (62.3%) of dental academics and that there is a pronounced trend towards the feminization of the profession. However, this numerical superiority does not translate into proportional representation in leadership roles, with only 25.8% of deanships held by women. Additionally, male dominance remains evident in surgically intensive departments, such as oral surgery and implantology. This situation demonstrates that despite the strong representation of women academics at early and mid‐career stages, structural and cultural barriers continue to hinder their advancement to higher‐level administrative roles.
To achieve a more egalitarian structure in the academic environment, it is necessary not only to increase numerical representation but also to implement institutional strategies that aim to eliminate systemic barriers that prevent women from advancing to leadership positions. These strategies should include the implementation of mentorship programs, increasing the transparency of promotion criteria, and creating supportive environments that encourage women academics to pursue leadership goals. It is also important to enhance monitoring mechanisms at both the national and institutional levels to enable the tracking of gender equality indicators over time.
Author Contributions
Esra Balkanlıoğlu: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, validation, visualisation, supervision, roles or writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Zeyneb Merve Ozdemir: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, validation, visualisation, supervision, roles or writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.
Funding
The authors have nothing to report.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors have nothing to report.
Data Availability Statement
The data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
References
- 1. World Health Organization , “Gender and Health,” World Health Organization, 2025, accessed May 3, 2025, https://www.who.int/health‐topics/gender#tab=tab_1.
- 2. Hay K., McDougal L., Percival V., et al., “Disrupting Gender Norms in Health Systems: Making the Case for Change,” Lancet 393 (2019): 2535–2549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ioannidou E. and Rosania A., “Under‐Representation of Women on Dental Journal Editorial Boards,” PLoS One 10 (2015): e0116630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Gangwani P. and Kolokythas A., “Gender Gap in Leadership in Academic Medicine and Dentistry: What Are the Barriers? What Can Be Done to Correct It?,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 77 (2019): 1536–1540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Shannon G., Minckas N., Tan D., et al., “Feminisation of the Health Workforce and Wage Conditions of Health Professions: An Exploratory Analysis,” Human Resources for Health 17 (2019): 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Phasuk K., Koka S., Kattadiyil M. T., and Mutluay M., “Leadership Diversity in Prosthodontics: Number of Women and Nonwhite Individuals Serving as President of Selected Prosthodontic Organizations in the Last 20 Years,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 125 (2021): 773–777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hernández‐Ruiz R. E., Rosel‐Gallardo E. M., Cifuentes‐Jiménez C., González‐López S., and Bolaños‐Carmona M. V., “Gender and Leadership Positions in Spanish Dentistry,” Inquiry 59 (2022): 469580221109970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Li J., De Souza R., Esfandiari S., and Feine J., “Have Women Broken the Glass Ceiling in North American Dental Leadership?,” Advances in Dental Research 30 (2019): 78–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. The Council of Higher Education , “Programı Bulunan Tüm Üniversiteler [All Universities With Programs],” Yükseköğretim Kurulu, 2025, accessed January 1, 2025, https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/lisans‐bolum.php?b=10049.
- 10. Bompolaki D., Pokala S. V., and Koka S., “Gender Diversity and Senior Leadership in Academic Dentistry: Female Representation at the Dean Position in the United States,” Journal of Dental Education 86 (2022): 401–405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Jacobson C. E., Beeler W. H., Griffith K. A., Flotte T. R., Byington C. L., and Jagsi R., “Common Pathways to Dean of Medicine at US Medical Schools,” PLoS One 16 (2021): e0249078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Koka S., Phasuk K., Kattadiyil M. T., and Mutluay M., “Leadership Diversity in Dentistry: Progress and Lack Thereof,” Journal of the American Dental Association 152 (2021): 85–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Simon L., Candamo F., He P., et al., “Gender Differences in Academic Productivity and Advancement Among Dental School Faculty,” Journal of Women's Health 28 (2019): 1350–1354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Gadbury‐Amyot C. C., Pyle M. A., Van Ness C. J., Overman P. R., and West K. P., “Which Way to Lean? A National Study of Women Dental Faculty Members' Career Aspirations and Choices,” Journal of Dental Education 80 (2016): 1392–1404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Aquino‐Canchari C. R., Ojeda‐Gómez R., Merizalde‐Ortega N. I., and Rodríguez‐Valladares A. K., “Proportion of Women on the Editorial Committees of Dental Journals in the World,” Brazilian Dental Science 24 (2021): 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Prado M. C., Dotto L., Agostini B. A., and Sarkis‐Onofre R., “Metaresearch Study Highlights the Gender Gap in Randomized Controlled Trials in Dentistry,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 162 (2023): 47–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Sebo P., “Performance of Gender Detection Tools: A Comparative Study of Name‐To‐Gender Inference Services,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 109 (2021): 414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Neville P., “Feminism, Pipelines and Gender Myths: Interrogating Gender Equality and Inclusion in Dentistry,” in Cultures of Oral Health, 1st ed. (Routledge, 2022), 65–80. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Lalloo R., “Gender and Geographic Diversity of Global Oral Health Organisations,” British Dental Journal (2024): 1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sebo P., “How Accurate Are Gender Detection Tools in Predicting the Gender for Chinese Names? A Study With 20,000 Given Names in Pinyin Format,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 110 (2022): 205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.