The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?

Attracting Diverse Students to Field Experiences Requires Adequate Pay, Flexibility, and Inclusion

Access to field experiences can increase participation of diverse groups in the environmental and natural resources (ENR) workforce. Despite a growing interest among the ENR community to attract and retain diverse students, minimal data exist on what factors undergraduate students prioritize when applying for field experiences. Using a nationwide survey of US undergraduate ENR students, we show that attracting most students to field experiences—especially racial or ethnic minority students—will require pay above minimum wage. However, the concurrent landscape of pay in ENR fell short of meeting many students’ pay needs. Aside from pay, ENR students valued training in technical field skills and analytical or research skills, working with their desired study species or taxa, and working near school or family. Additional barriers beyond limited pay included incompatible schedules and noninclusive work environments. Our findings provide important insights for attracting a diverse workforce to this critical stage in career advancement for students in ENR.

Gender inequalities in the dental science: An analysis of high impact publications

OBJECTIVE

To assess the participation of women in publications of dental journals with a high impact factor.

METHODS

Articles published in 2016, 2011, and 2006 in 10 dental journals chosen for their highest impact factors in each dental fields were included in this research. Articles-related variables collected included the country of origin of each author, the type of study, and gender of the researchers. Gender was examined through PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, and respective affiliated institutions. Furthermore, a website designed to discover the gender of names was used when the previous alternatives were not conclusive. Forward stepwise Poisson regression models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3365 studies were included in the first authorship analysis and 3398 in analysis related to last authorship. The prevalence of women as first authors was 37.2% (confidence interval (CI) 95% 34.5-37.5) and as last authors was 22.6% (CI 95% 21.3-23.9). Having a woman as the last author increased the presence of women in the first author position in scientific dental articles by 16% (prevalence ratio = 1.16, CI 95% [1.04-1.29]). The year of publication, journal, and region of the author were associated with an increase in the prevalence of women as last authors. From 2006 to 2016, the prevalence of women as last authors increased by 61%. Despite these trends, women were still underrepresented in science in the evaluated period.

CONCLUSIONS

There are meaningful gender inequalities in publications of scientific dental papers. Encouraging women to lead research groups can reduce the inequities observed in the present study.

Gender Disparity in the Authorship of Biomedical Research Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Gender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics.

Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery journals

Background

Despite women constituting over half of new doctors, gender disparity remains an issue. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aimed to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the highest ranking international general surgery journals.

Methods

Surgical journals were collated using two indices: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non-general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted, requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data were collected via journal websites on 28 November 2019.

Results

The top 25 general surgery journals according to SJR and JIF ranking methods were determined, identifying 28 unique journals. Editorial board data were publicly available for 27 of these 28 surgical journals, and were examined. Women accounted for 20.2 per cent (568 of 2816) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 11 per cent (4 of 36) of editor-in-chief positions, 32 per cent (29 of 92) of deputy editors, and 19.1 per cent (369 of 1935) of general editorial board positions.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate gender disparity within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals.

Gender issues in fundamental physics: A bibliometric analysis

I analyze bibliometric data about fundamental physics worldwide from 1970 to now, extracting quantitative data about gender issues. I do not find significant gender differences in hiring rates, hiring timing, career gaps and slowdowns, abandonment rates, citation, and self-citation patterns. Furthermore, various bibliometric indicators (number of fractionally counted papers, citations, etc.) exhibit a productivity gap at hiring moments, at career level, and without integrating over careers. The gap persists after accounting for confounding factors and manifests as an increasing fraction of male authors going from average to top authors in terms of bibliometric indices, with a quantitative shape that can be fitted by higher male variability.

Longitudinal analyses of gender differences in first authorship publications related to COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Concerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted research productivity to the disadvantage of women in academia, particularly in early career stages. In this study, we aimed to assess the pandemic's effect on women's COVID-19-related publishing over the first year of the pandemic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We compared the gender distribution of first authorships for 42 898 publications on COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 January 2021 to 483 232 publications appearing in the same journals during the same period the year prior. We found that the gender gap-the percentage of articles on which men versus women were first authors-widened by 14 percentage points during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite many pertinent research fields showing near equal proportions of men and women first authors publishing in the same fields before the pandemic. Longitudinal analyses revealed that the significant initial expansions of the gender gap began to trend backwards to expected values over time in many fields. As women may have been differentially affected depending on their geography, we also assessed the gender distribution of first authorships grouped by countries and geographical areas. While we observed a significant reduction of the shares of women first authors in almost all countries, longitudinal analyses confirmed a resolving trend over time.

CONCLUSION

The reduction in women's COVID-19-related research output appears particularly concerning as many disciplines informing the response to the pandemic had near equal gender shares of first authorship in the year prior to the pandemic. The acute productivity drain with the onset of the pandemic magnifies deep-rooted obstacles on the way to gender equity in scientific contribution.

Women are underrepresented in major US sleep societies recognition awards

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate gender distribution of US sleep professionals who received major recognition awards over a forty-year period from the two national sleep societies: the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and the Sleep Research Society (SRS).

METHODS

We reviewed and analyzed the publicly available lists of sleep recognition awards recipients from the AASM and the SRS websites. The primary outcome measures were the overall proportion of individual sleep recognition awards given to US men and women sleep professionals and the trend over time (1981-2020) analyzed by decade using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

Seven major sleep recognition awards (four by the AASM; three by the SRS) were identified over 40 years. There were overall 164 individual sleep recognition awards presented by the two sleep societies to US sleep professionals, including 136 (82.9%) awarded for men and only 28 (17.1%) awarded for women. The analysis of the sleep recognition awards over time by decade revealed a significant increasing trend (p < 0.0001) in the proportion of awards recognizing women relative to men with a progression from 0.0% in the 1980s, to 3.4% in the 1990s, to 13.1% in the 2000s, and to 31.7% in the 2010s.

CONCLUSIONS

US women sleep professionals were historically underrepresented in major sleep recognition awards, with a reduction in the gender gap in the last ten years. The reasons behind gender inequality in sleep recognition awards remain unclear and deserve further investigation.

Assessment of gender divide in scientific communities

Increasing evidence of women’s under-representation in some scientific disciplines is prompting researchers to expand our understanding of this social phenomenon. Moreover, any countermeasures proposed to eliminate this under-representation should be tailored to the actual reasons for this different participation. Here, we take a multi-dimensional approach to assessing gender differences in science by representing scientific communities as social networks, and using data analytics, complexity science methods, and semantic methods to measure gender differences in the context, the attitude and the success of scientists. We apply this approach to four scientific communities in the two fields of computer science and information systems using the network of authors at four different conferences. For each discipline, one conference is based in Italy and attracts mostly Italians, while one conference is international in both location and participants. The present paper provides evidence against common narratives that women’s under-representation is due to women’s limited skills and/or less social centrality.

Rebuild the Academy: Supporting academic mothers during COVID-19 and beyond

The issues facing academic mothers have been discussed for decades. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is further exposing these inequalities as womxn scientists who are parenting while also engaging in a combination of academic related duties are falling behind. These inequities can be solved by investing strategically in solutions. Here we describe strategies that would ensure a more equitable academy for working mothers now and in the future. While the data are clear that mothers are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, many groups could benefit from these strategies. Rather than rebuilding what we once knew, let us be the architects of a new world.

Women's role in neurosurgical research: is the gender gap improving?

OBJECTIVE

The percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons.

METHODS

Two of the most prominent neurosurgical journals-Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery-were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions' region.

RESULTS

A total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers' profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates.

Women in Neurosurgery: From a Matter of Fortuitous Occasions Toward a Conscious Choice

BACKGROUND

Medicine has made progress toward gender equality and has achieved almost equal distribution between men and women among graduates. However, more still needs to be done because most surgical subspecialties are still lacking adequate female representation and this persisting gender gap is particularly evident in both practical neurosurgery and the academic world. Gradual advancements have enabled a few women to pursue a successful career in neurologic surgery, pairing clinical practice with mentoring and involvement in academic research. These efforts show that more needs to be done to bridge the historic and current gap, which has recently aroused increasing interest among the neurosurgical community through internationally relevant studies. In neurosurgical societies worldwide, the existence of gender-related issues and women-reserved sections has started to attract attention and recognition on how to properly address this issue among present and future neurosurgeons.

METHODS

In this study, we discuss the timeline of women's road to gaining their place in neurosurgery, inspired by Hippocrates' motto "Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future." Although neurosurgery had been traditionally considered too difficult a subject in which to engage, the first female neurosurgeons challenged themselves in this field, previously reserved only for men, at a time when society was not yet ready to embrace women's presence. Their successes paved the way for future generations of women, progressively shedding light on complex themes such as peer considerations, difficulty in reaching academic positions, and work-life balance.

RESULTS

Our aim is to analyze the historic reasons for inequality among men and women, which might be found in the themes of personal choice and willingness, aside from cultural bias or stereotypically based thinking.

CONCLUSIONS

Accordingly, if the difference in numbers were considered a reality related to personal inclination, perhaps, nobody would pay attention to this topic and the presence of even a few women in neurosurgery would be considered less strange. By thinking along those lines on a daily basis, we could all simply write about the history of valuable neurosurgeons in the past, present, and future without any distinction between men and women.

Gender Equity Imbalance in Cardiology Scientific Sessions in the Americas

Women remain largely under-represented in cardiology worldwide. This is especially reflected in scientific sessions where panelists have a male preponderant representation. The amount of gender equity in cardiology during scientific activities in the American continent is unknown. The objective was to compare gender distribution of invited panelists in cardiology scientific sessions across the Americas during the period 2019-2020. A retrospective analysis of the cardiology scientific sessions held in North, Central, and South America was conducted. Sessions published on the official site and social networks of the national cardiology societies from January 1, 2019 to August 10, 2020 were included. Gender distribution and all-male panels were compared according to geographic regions, year, roles in the panel, and the main topics of the session. Seven hundred fifty-two scientific sessions were analyzed, with 3786 participants. The median participation of women was 20% (IQR 0%-37.5%). Specifically, the statistics reflected a female participation of 25% (IQR 0%-43.6%) in North America, 12.5% (IQR 0%-43%) in Central America and 10% (IQR 0%-33.3%) in South America (P < 0.0001). Women participation in the panels was different according to the main topic of the session (P < 0.0001), with higher proportions in topics such as cardiovascular diseases in women, congenital heart disease and cardio oncology. The frequency of all-male panels was 36.8% (CI95% 33.3-40.1), and it increased over time (2019: 30.9% vs 2020: 40.3%; P = 0.012). There is gender inequity in cardiology scientific sessions held in different regions of the Americas, with low participation of women especially in interventionist panels and leadership roles.

Gender disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership

Objectives

To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials.

Methods

We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/.

Results

Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.

An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council

Gender equality and Open Access (OA) are priorities within the European Research Area and cross-cutting issues in European research program H2020. Gender and openness are also key elements of responsible research and innovation. However, despite the common underlying targets of fostering an inclusive, transparent and sustainable research environment, both issues are analysed as independent topics. This paper represents a first exploration of the inter-linkages between gender and OA analysing the scientific production of researchers of the Italian National Research Council under a gender perspective integrated with the different OA publications modes. A bibliometric analysis was carried out for articles published in the period 2016–2018 and retrieved from the Web of Science. Results are presented constantly analysing CNR scientific production in relation to gender, disciplinary fields and OA publication modes. These variables are also used when analysing articles that receive financial support. Our results indicate that gender disparities in scientific production still persist particularly in STEM disciplines, while the gender gap is the closest to parity in medical and agricultural sciences. A positive dynamic toward OA publishing and women’s scientific production is shown when disciplines with well-established open practices are related to articles supported by funds. A slightly higher women’s propensity toward OA is shown when considering Gold OA, or authorships with women in the first and last article by-line position. The prevalence of Italian funded articles with women’s contributions published in Gold OA journals seems to confirm this tendency, especially if considering the weak enforcement of the Italian OA policies.

Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals

Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender bias in peer review with data for 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. Results showed that manuscripts written by women as solo authors or coauthored by women were treated even more favorably by referees and editors. Although there were some differences between fields of research, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, increasing gender diversity in editorial teams and referee pools could help journals inform potential authors about their attention to these factors and so stimulate participation by women.

Closing the gender gap at academic conferences: A tool for monitoring and assessing academic events

The importance of participation in academic conferences is well known for members of the scientific community. It is not only for the feedback and the improvement of the work, it is also about career development, building networks and increasing visibility. Nevertheless, women continue to be under-represented in these academic events and even more so in the most visible positions such as speaking roles. This paper presents the development of a tool based on performance indicators, which will allow monitoring and evaluating gender roles and inequalities in academic conferences in order to tackle the underrepresentation of women. The study identifies relevant perspectives (participation, organizational structure and attitudes) and designs specific lists of performance indicators for each of them. The tool is based on a combination of two multicriteria techniques, Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Hierarchy Process Sort, and a qualitative analysis based on in-depth interviews and information gathered from a focus group. The use of the AHP multi-criteria decision technique has allowed us to weight the indicators according to the opinion of several experts, and with them to be able to generate from these weightings composite indicators for each of the three dimensions. The most relevant indicators were for the participation dimension. Additionally, the tool developed has been applied to an academic conference which has been monitored in real time. The results are shown as a traffic light visualization approach, where red means bad performance, yellow average performance and green good performance, helping us to present the results for each indicator. Finally, proposals for improvement actions addressed to the red indicators are explained. The work carried out highlights the need to broaden the study of gender equality in academic conferences, not only regarding the participation but also the performance of different roles and functions.

When You Put It that Way: Framing Gender Equality Initiatives to Improve Engagement among STEM Academics

A number of high-profile gender equality initiatives (GEIs) are intended to address women's underrepresentation in science. However, attitudes toward such initiatives can be negative. In two experiments with STEM academics, we examined how GEIs can be best framed to improve attitudes toward them. In study 1 (N = 113), we manipulated the framing of GEI leadership (led by a man or woman) and GEI focus (benefitting men and women or benefitting women only). The men were more supportive of GEIs benefitting both men and women because of fewer concerns of unfair treatment and more internal motivations to engage with GEIs. The women's level of support was unaffected by framing. In study 2 (N = 151), we framed GEIs as either supported by university management or not and either internally or externally driven. Support was greater for internally driven GEIs. The impact of management support depended on the academics’ experience with GEIs. This research makes evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of GEIs to improve their effectiveness.

Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case

Much of the work on gender equality in higher educational institutions (HEIs) has concentrated on the organizational level. The original contribution of this article lies in its focus on state policy developments and interventions. We focus on Ireland as a specific national context, highlighting multi-level state interventions and looking at their impact on HEIs. Using secondary data analysis (including documentary analysis) and focusing particularly on the period since 2014, state initiatives to tackle the problem of gender inequality from various angles are outlined. They include the introduction of Athena SWAN; the Expert Group Review; the Gender Equality Taskforce; the Senior Academic Leadership Initiative; research funding agency initiatives and those around sexual harassment. In evaluating their impact, we look at the gender pay gap, the gender profile of the professoriate and senior management as well as other indicators of cultural change in HEIs. The article concludes that the best possibility of leveraging change arises when it is driven at the state (macro); the HEI (meso) and the situational (micro) level simultaneously, by gender competent leaders willing to tackle the historically male dominated, masculinist criteria, procedures, processes and micropolitical practices that are “normalized” in HEIs.

Authorship in top-ranked mathematical and physical journals: Role of gender on self-perceptions and bibliographic evidence

Despite increasing rates of women researching in math-intensive fields, publications by female authors remain underrepresented. By analyzing millions of records from the dedicated bibliographic databases zbMATH, arXiv, and ADS, we unveil the chronological evolution of authorships by women in mathematics, physics, and astronomy. We observe a pronounced shortage of female authors in top-ranked journals, with quasistagnant figures in various distinguished periodicals in the first two disciplines and a significantly more equitable situation in the latter. Additionally, we provide an interactive open-access web interface to further examine the data. To address whether female scholars submit fewer articles for publication to relevant journals or whether they are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged by the peer review system, we also study authors’ perceptions of their submission practices and analyze around 10,000 responses, collected as part of a recent global survey of scientists. Our analysis indicates that men and women perceive their submission practices to be similar, with no evidence that a significantly lower number of submissions by women is responsible for their underrepresentation in top-ranked journals. According to the self-reported responses, a larger number of articles submitted to prestigious venues correlates rather with aspects associated with pronounced research activity, a well-established network, and academic seniority.

Examining gender diversity growth as a model for inclusion of all underrepresented persons in medical physics

The labor force of Medical Physics is one of the most gender diverse in the field of Physics, as it has attained the proportional achievement of ~30% women worldwide (Tsapaki et al. Phys Medica. 2018;55:33-39). While great strides have been made toward a gender diverse workforce, women still comprise an underrepresented group. Many strategies have been suggested to increase the participation of underrepresented persons by addressing unconscious biases, increasing opportunities, dedicated hiring policies, and providing support networks in science and medicine (Barabino et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; Coe et al. Lancet. 2019), yet the personnel landscape remains largely uniform. Herein, the conditions, strategies, and approaches that facilitated gender diversity in Medical Physics are considered as a means to further the inclusion of other underrepresented groups through exemplars of mentorship, addressing unconscious biases and the implementation of inclusive practices. Furthermore, the potential for gender diversity to act as a catalyst to create an environment that is more accepting of diversity and supports and encourages inclusive practices for the participation and inclusion of other underrepresented groups in Medical Physics is discussed.

Rank Equity Index: Measuring Parity in the Advancement of Underrepresented Populations in Academic Medicine

As educators, researchers, clinicians, and administrators, faculty serve pivotal roles in academic medical centers (AMCs). Thus, the quality of faculty members' experiences is inseparable from an AMC's success. In seeking new methods to assess equity in advancement in academic medicine, the authors developed the Rank Equity Index (REI)-adapted from the Executive Parity Index, a scale previously implemented within the business sector-to examine national data on gender and racial/ethnic equity across faculty ranks. The REI was employed on self-reported demographic data, collected by the Association of American Medical Colleges, from U.S. medical school faculty in 2017, to make pairwise rank comparisons of the professoriate by demographic characteristics and department. Overall results indicated that women did not attain parity at any pairwise rank comparison, while men were above parity at all ranks. Similar results were observed across all departments surveyed: women in the basic sciences had REIs closest to parity, women in pediatrics had the highest representation but had REIs that were further from parity than REIs in the basic sciences, and women in surgery demonstrated the lowest REIs. Nationally, REIs were below 1.00 for all racial/ethnic group rank comparisons except for White and, in one case, multiple-race non-Hispanic/Latinx. Across all analyzed departments, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and multiple-race Hispanic/Latinx faculty had REIs below parity at all ranks except in 2 cases. In a comparison of 2017 and 2007 data, REIs across both race/ethnicity and gender were lower in 2007 for nearly all groups. REI analyses can highlight inequities in faculty rank that may be masked when using aggregate faculty proportions, which do not account for rank. The REI provides AMCs with a new tool to better analyze institutional data to inform efforts to increase parity across all faculty ranks.

The authorship in nursing literature: an against trend?

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Women graduated and engaged in the scientific world are in increasing numbers. The present study aimed to analyze the gender difference in nursing scientific publication and to understand the trend in nursing science is the same or different to that reported in other scientific disciplines.

METHODS

We considered the first name in the authorship of the highest impacted factor journals related of year 2019 in the Web of Science database for the period 2015-2019, as: the International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) and the Nursing Outlook (NO). Considering the proposed economic classification of the "World bank", weassessed the gender of the first authors searched with the relative degree of wealth of their countries thanks to the chi square test.

RESULTS

From 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2019 a total of 1171 first authors were identified. Of these, 776 (66.27%) belonged to the IJNS and 395 (33.73%) to the NO. The female gender was most representative than the male gender into two journals. In fact, 982 (83.9%) citations belong to female researchers while 189 (16.1%) citations belong to male researchers. However, the same trend is not evaluated in the Italian scenario where the male gender predominates over the female one in scientific production.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing scientific production shows a counter trend compared to other scientific disciplines, highlighting a predominance of the female sex over the male one. This difference is more pronounced in the more economically developed countries.

Gender gap in medical research: a bibliometric study in Swiss university hospitals

Several studies explored gender inequalities in research, but only limited data are available concerning general internal medicine and family medicine. We aimed to assess the level of gender inequalities in Swiss academic medical research. In this bibliometric study conducted in March 2020, we selected all senior hospital physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. The list of these physicians was extracted from the hospitals’ websites. We recorded their socio-demographic characteristics. Then, using Web of Science, we retrieved the number of publications (overall, as first author, per year, per year as first author), the proportion of publications as first author, the number of citations (overall, per year, per publication) and the h-index, and we compared the data by gender. 367 senior physicians were included in the study [female physicians: 172 (47%), internal medicine: 187 (51%)]. Female physicians were four times less likely to be a professor (5% vs. 20%, p value < 0.001) and half as often heads of division or staff physicians (19% vs. 40%, p value < 0.001). The proportion of physicians having published at least one article was lower among women than men (79% vs. 90%, p value 0.003). Finally, all bibliometric indices were associated with male gender (incident rate ratios ranging from 1.9 [(95% CI 1.3–2.8), p value 0.001] for number of citations per publication to 9.3 [(95% CI 5.3–16.2), p value < 0.001] for number of citations), except the proportion of publications as first author that was associated with female gender [odds ratio 1.7 (95% CI 1.2–2.3), p value 0.003). Our data suggest a “leaky pipeline” phenomenon (a lower proportion of women moving up the academic ladder). In addition, with the exception of the proportion of publications as first author, all bibliometric indices were lower for female than male physicians.

The Gender Productivity Gap in Croatian Science: Women Are Catching up with Males and Becoming Even Better

How much different genders contribute to citations and whether we see different gender patterns between STEM and non-STEM researchers are questions that have long been studied in academia. Here we analyze the research output in terms of citations collected from the Web of Science of males and females from the largest Croatian university, University of Zagreb. Applying the Mann–Whitney statistical test, for most faculties, we demonstrate no gender difference in research output except for seven faculties, where males are significantly better than females on six faculties. We find that female STEM full professors are significantly more cited than male colleagues, while male non-STEM assistant professors are significantly more cited than their female colleagues. There are ten faculties where females have the larger average citations than their male colleagues and eleven faculties where the most cited researcher is woman. For the most cited researchers, our Zipf plot analyses demonstrate that both genders follow power laws, where the exponent calculated for male researchers is moderately larger than the exponent for females. The exponent for STEM citations is slightly larger than the exponent obtained for non-STEM citations, implying that compared to non-STEM, STEM research output leads to fatter tails and so larger citations inequality than non-STEM.

Women as first authors in key pharmacy journals: Analysis by publication type

BACKGROUND

Numerous national and international studies have explored the issue of gender disparity in health science-publication rates. However, few have examined publication type (e.g., reviews and original research) and authorship order, which are 2 key factors in contribution recognition and the work's visibility and application.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to determine the changes in the distribution of women as first authors by publication type over time in pharmacy practice journals.

METHODS

This was a bibliometric data analysis of pharmacy practice publications from January 2007 through December 2017. We used data from the U.S. Social Security Administration, and the multilingual Genderize application program interface (Genderize.io) to identify the authors' potential gender. To determine the publication type, we used the Web of Science article list (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA). The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to determine the differences over time.

RESULTS

Articles published from January 2007 through December 2017 in 8 pharmacy practice journals were reviewed (N = 14,658 articles): research articles (63.8%), reviews (17.0%), editorial material (11.1%), and letters (8.1%). There was a statistically significant increase in the number of first-authored articles and reviews by women (45.1% to 55.4% and 39.2% to 56.1%, respectively). There was not a significant increase in the proportion of women as first authors in editorials or letters over the study period.

CONCLUSION

Despite increases in research and reviews with women as first authors, there is still a need for increased representation of women in opinion-based publications such as editorials.

Roll the Dice—Let’s See If Differences Really Matter! Accounting Judgments and Sustainable Decisions in the Light of a Gender and Age Analysis

This research aims to investigate whether gender and age of Professional Accountants influence their opinion upon accounting judgments and sustainable decision-making. Through a questionnaire, accountants were interrogated about their education, professional profile, age, gender, personality traits, and their perception on accounting judgment and professional behavior. On one hand, results showed that women accountants are more inclined to comply with accounting regulations and more interested in following an ethical behavior. Moreover, women tend to be more interested in fulfilling managers’ expectations and more willing to collaborate. On the other hand, men accountants proved to be more independent in judgments and more skeptical. Furthermore, men have a greater propensity to make accurate, sustainable judgments, considering the evaluation of goodwill as more important than women. However, no correlations were found between age, gender and accountants’ perception on the theoretical framework of professional accounting judgment. As the age of accountants grows, the compliance degree to regulations increases. This study adds value to gender accounting literature by the way it examines accountants’ behavior and perception towards accounting judgments and sustainable decisions in correlation to gender diversity and age.

Trends in Female Authorship Within Urologic Literature: A Comparison of 2012 and 2017

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends in female authorship in the recent urologic literature.

METHODS

We examined articles published in 2012 and 2017 from 5 urologic journals: Journal of Urology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urologic Oncology, and Urology. Gender was recorded for first, supplemental, and last authors. Articles were further categorized by subspecialty focus of the published article. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression modeling were used to assess for differences in female authorship by year, journal, and article subspecialty.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and thirty-three and 1374 articles were published in 2012 and 2017, respectively. There was a significant increase in all female authorship categories between years: first (19%-25%), last (12-16%), and any (67%-74%) (P<.01, all). By journal, the highest proportion of articles with any female authors for both years was in Neurourology and Urodynamics (80%, 2012; 85%, 2017) while lowest was in Journal of Endourology (49%, 2012; 54%, 2017). Likewise, female authorship was generally higher in female/voiding dysfunction /incontinence and lower in endourology subspecialty articles. Controlling for journal and subspecialty, multiple logistic regression analysis showed no change in last authorship between years.

CONCLUSION

Overall female authorship in the urologic literature has increased in recent years. However, after controlling for journal and subspecialty we found no increase in female last authorship between years, suggesting that disparities in senior authorships exist based on journal and subspecialty topic. Our findings further suggest an authorship plateau, highlighting the importance of efforts to optimize advancement and promotion of women in academic urology.

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

IMPORTANCE

The inclusion of authors from diverse backgrounds and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs), as well as the subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are representative of the global community.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision.

DESIGN

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) eyes and vision intervention SRs published in The Cochrane Library and a random sample of 313 eyes and vision intervention SRs published elsewhere for this study. We determined gender of the first and corresponding authors ("woman," "man," or "unknown") using a previously developed algorithm and their location based on institution country and the World Health Organization region.

RESULTS

From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 751 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 647/751 (86%) authors: 276 women and 371 men. Among Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. Most authors of Cochrane eyes and vision SRs were from the UK (31%) and USA (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane SRs were from China (34%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with authors of non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, authors of Cochrane SRs appear to have approximately equal representation of women and men among perceived important author positions and be located in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

Addressing Gender Equity in Senior Leadership Roles in Translational Science

Inequities for women exist across many leverage points of an academic career in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines, ranging from poorer success rates at promotion, reduced grant success, and a lower likelihood of invited conference presentations, to a propensity to undertake the lion's share of academic service roles. Moreover, an almost intractable salary gap exists, along with a stark under-representation of women in senior scientific leadership roles, widespread throughout the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. Numerous factors have been put forward as contributors to this disparity, including the notions that these inequities are a result of a pipeline issue and that women are less qualified or have less experience than men, implicit bias, a lack of flexibility in the work place, a lack of role models, the use of biased measures of success for promotion, and the lack of equitable parental leave programs. In this viewpoint, we address factors shown to contribute to the lack of women in leadership roles. Specifically, we look at systemic barriers, parental and carer leave, and domestic barriers, and we present solutions to address these barriers across an individual's professional and personal life. For women to achieve equity in senior scientific leadership roles, we believe that barriers across all facets of life need to be addressed and that the important contributions that women make and have made to STEMM need to be recognized.

Gender Differences in Grant Submissions across Science and Engineering Fields at the NSF

There has been great growth in women's participation in the US academic doctoral workforce, but underrepresentation remains in all science and engineering fields, especially at high academic ranks. We obtained estimates of the numbers of professorial women and men in fields likely to seek funding from the National Science Foundation and aligned those numbers with each of six research directorates to investigate temporal trends in submission patterns. We found that women are as likely to be funded as men, but the percentage of women submitting proposals was less than expected in every field but engineering. Women are as likely as men to be employed at the most research active institutions, but women are less likely than men to self-report research as their primary work activity in almost all fields but engineering. This work imbalance ultimately limits the diversity of basic science research ideas in science and engineering.

Gender gap in research: a bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and general internal medicine

BACKGROUND

Many studies examined gender inequalities in research, but only a few data are available for general biomedical journals. We assessed the prevalence of female first authorship in general biomedical journals and examined its variations across a number of author, article and journal characteristics.

METHODS

This study was nested within a larger project designed to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of scientific articles. We retrieved 767 randomly selected articles published in 2016 in high impact factor journals of primary healthcare (n = 9) and general internal medicine (n = 9). We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications and affiliation of the first author), paper (number of authors, number of participants and study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline and 2015 impact factor). We compared the proportion of articles authored by women and men using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for intra-cluster correlations.

RESULTS

The female authorship proportion was 48% (63% for primary healthcare and 33% for general internal medicine, P-value < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, women published fewer articles (<5 versus >15 publications: OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.4]), were more often affiliated with institutions in the Western world (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2-3.9]), were more likely to publish qualitative studies (versus systematic reviews or experiments: OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-4.8]) and to publish in primary healthcare journals (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1-2.7]).

CONCLUSIONS

The underrepresentation of women in articles published by general internal medicine journals, in articles from the non-Western world and in systematic reviews and trials should be addressed.

Female Faculty: Why So Few and Why Care?

Despite slow ongoing progress in increasing the representation of women in academia, women remain significantly under-represented at senior levels, in particular in the natural sciences and engineering. Not infrequently, this is downplayed by bringing forth arguments such as inherent biological differences between genders, that current policies are adequate to address the issue, or by deflecting this as being "not my problem" among other examples. In this piece we present scientific evidence that counters these claims, as well as a best-practice example, Genie, from Chalmers University of Technology, where one of the authors is currently employed. We also highlight particular challenges caused by the current COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, we conclude by proposing some possible solutions to the situation and emphasize that we need to all do our part, to ensure that the next generation of academics experience a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable working environment.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists

Similarly to many scientific disciplines, neuroscience has increasingly attempted to confront pervasive gender imbalances. Although publishing and conference participation are often highlighted, recent research has called attention to the prevalence of gender imbalance in citations. Because of the downstream effects of citations on visibility and career advancement, understanding the role of gender in citation practices is vital for addressing scientific inequity. Here, we investigate whether gendered patterns are present in neuroscience citations. Using data from five top neuroscience journals, we find that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last author than would be expected if gender were unrelated to referencing. Importantly, we show that this imbalance is driven largely by the citation practices of men and is increasing over time as the field diversifies. We assess and discuss possible mechanisms and consider how researchers might approach these issues in their own work.

Gender-Pay Equity in Academic Neurosurgery at United States Public Universities

Background

Compensation has historically been unequal for men versus women in medical fields, particularly in surgical subspecialties. 

Objective

We analyzed associations between gender and compensation and identified factors associated with compensation among male and female academic neurosurgeons in the United States (US) public institutions.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of available data for the 2016-2017 fiscal years associated with male and female neurosurgical faculty from public, academic institutions within the US. The data used for analysis included total annual salary, which consisted of the base salary and additional compensation. Other gleaned data included faculty demographics, training, and academic appointments. The male and female neurosurgeons' data were separated into two respective gender groups and then were compared. Predictors of compensation were identified using univariable and non-imputed and multiply-imputed multivariable statistical models.

Results

The cohort was comprised of 460 neurosurgery faculty members (female n=34; male n=426). Total annual salaries were comparable between the genders. Females were more likely to be younger (p=0.001), to have completed neurosurgery training recently (p=0.003), to have had fellowship training (p=0.011), and to have lower h­-indices (p=0.003) compared to males. Males and females differed in academic ranks (p=0.035) and neurosurgical subspecialties (p=0.038). Midwest (a\begin{document}\beta\end{document})=-US$337,516.7, p=0.002), South (a\begin{document}\beta\end{document}=-US$302,500.5, p=0.003), and West (a\begin{document}\beta\end{document}=-US$276,848.8, p=0.005) practices were independent predictors of lower annual compensation. Chair position (a\begin{document}\beta\end{document}=US$174,180.3, p=0.019) and associate professorship (a\begin{document}\beta\end{document}=US$126,633.4, p=0.037) were independent predictors of higher annual compensation. Gender was not a significant predictor of total annual compensation.

Conclusions

Total salaries were not different between male and female neurosurgeons in public, academic institutions in the US. Gender was not a significant predictor of total annual compensation. This study is applicable to public institutions in states with Freedom of Information Act reporting requirements. 

Taiwanese Researchers' Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study

In 2014, SAGE Publications retracted 60 articles authored by Taiwanese researchers due to suspected peer-review fraud. This scandal led to the resignation of the Minister of Education at the time since he coauthored several retracted works. Issues regarding the lack of transparent decision-making processes regarding authorship were further disclosed. Motivated by the scandal, we believe that this is one of the first empirical studies of questionable authorship practices (QAPs) in East Asian academia; we investigate Taiwanese researchers' perceptions of QAPs. To meet this purpose, a self-reported survey was developed. Four hundred and three local researchers, including research faculty (e.g., professors), postdoctoral researchers, and Ph.D. students, participated in the survey. Four major findings resulted. First, the underlying causes of Taiwanese doctoral students' engagement in QAPs were attributable to their desire to achieve particular academic-related successes and their feeling of reciprocal obligation to support other researchers. Second, the underlying motives for Taiwanese research associates' (i.e., research faculty and postdoctoral fellows) engagement in QAPs were attributable to their attempts to achieve particular career successes and of the desire to consolidate their professional networks. Third, the participants generally agreed that QAPs had a long history among local academics but were rarely reported. Fourth, participants' backgrounds (i.e., research discipline, academic rank, and type of affiliations) had significant effects on their responses regarding particular authorship issues; however, their gender did not have a significant effect. QAPs are a critical issue in Taiwanese academia; therefore, we discussed the implications of the current findings including subsequent instruction and future research.

Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology

Disparities remain in the representation of marginalized students in STEM. Classroom-based experiential learning opportunities can increase student confidence and academic success; however, the effectiveness of extending learning to outdoor settings is unknown. Our objectives were to examine (a) demographic gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) major completion, college graduation, and GPAs for students who did and did not enroll in field courses, (b) whether under-represented demographic groups were less likely to enroll in field courses, and (c) whether under-represented demographic groups were more likely to feel increased competency in science-related tasks (hereafter, self-efficacy) after participating in field courses. We compared the relationships among academic success measures and demographic data (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation, and gender) for UC Santa Cruz undergraduate students admitted between 2008 and 2019 who participated in field courses (N = 941 students) and who did not (N = 28,215 students). Additionally, we administered longitudinal surveys to evaluate self-efficacy gains during field-based versus classroom-based courses (N = 570 students). We found no differences in the proportion of students matriculating at the university as undecided, proposed EEB, or proposed other majors across demographic groups. However, five years later, under-represented students were significantly less likely to graduate with EEB degrees, indicating retention rather than recruitment drives disparities in representation. This retention gap is partly due to a lower rate of college completion and partly through attrition to other majors. Although under-represented students were less likely to enroll in field courses, field courses were associated with higher self-efficacy gains, higher college graduation rates, higher EEB major retention, and higher GPAs at graduation. All demographic groups experienced significant increases in self-efficacy during field-based but not lecture-based courses. Together, our findings suggest that increasing the number of field courses and actively facilitating access to students from under-represented groups can be a powerful tool for increasing STEM diversity.

My journey in academia: things not on the CV

I am a professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. I trained in chemistry in Sweden but went to the USA for my postdoc. I remained there for 12 years, being faculty at two American universities, before I returned to Sweden for a professorship in the northern city of Umeå. More recently, I returned to my alma mater Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, where I have taken on senior leadership roles. On paper, my career trajectory looks straightforward, but there are many detrimental aspects and lucky coincidences that are not listed on my CV. Life in academia is never easy, and one is never ‘done’. But working in academia is wonderful, as it provides so much freedom and creativity, including being very accommodating towards having kids. Here, I will describe my own personal journey, with the hope of inspiring young women to follow their own path in academia. Yes, there is still bias against women in academia, but change is happening, and the many benefits of being an academic beat such drawbacks.

Supporting Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity in the Infectious Disease Workforce

In medicine, a wide array of evidence demonstrates the presence of gender, racial, ethnic, and other disparities in representation, compensation, and career development. These disparities also exist in the field of infectious diseases, providing important opportunities for the Infectious Diseases Society of America to identify and report its successes in and challenges to achieving equity. In this article, we review the literature documenting challenges with equity broadly in medicine and specifically in infectious diseases. We then introduce the Be Ethical Campaign, an initiative that encourages healthcare leaders to use metrics and data analysis to identify workforce equity gaps and pursue opportunities to close them.

Ten simple rules for running a successful women-in-STEM organization on an academic campus

The current academic culture facing women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields in the United States has sparked the formation of grassroots advocacy groups to empower female scientists in training. However, the impact of these initiatives often goes unmeasured and underappreciated. Our Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE) organization serves postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and research technicians (trainees) at a private research institute for biological sciences. Here we propose the following guidelines for cultivating a successful women-in-STEM-focused group based upon survey results from our own scientific community as well as the experience of our WiSE group leaders. We hope these recommendations can provide guidance to advocacy groups at other research and academic organizations that wish to strengthen their efforts. Whereas our own group specifically focuses on the underrepresented state of women in science, we hope these guidelines may be adapted and applied to groups that advocate for any minority group within the greater scientific community (i.e., those of gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, etc.).

Women are underrepresented in leadership positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) despite obtaining undergraduate and graduate-level degrees at roughly the same rate as men. To take advantage of this resource of highly trained women in STEM fields, there needs to be better career support for female scientists in training. The authors report on their experience running a women-in-STEM-focused group to foster a more supportive, collaborative, and egalitarian scientific community. In particular, the authors use data-driven metrics to evaluate the success of their group in meeting the needs of their community. The results of this evaluation are presented as a set of 10 guidelines for establishing and maintaining advocacy groups that support the careers of women in science.

Mind the Gap: The Underrepresentation of Female Participants and Authors in Virtual Reality Research

A common goal of human-subject experiments in virtual reality (VR) research is evaluating VR hardware and software for use by the general public. A core principle of human-subject research is that the sample included in a given study should be representative of the target population; otherwise, the conclusions drawn from the findings may be biased and may not generalize to the population of interest. In order to assess whether characteristics of participants in VR research are representative of the general public, we investigated participant demographic characteristics from human-subject experiments in the Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conferences from 2015-2019. We also assessed the representation of female authors. In the 325 eligible manuscripts, which presented results from 365 human-subject experiments, we found evidence of significant underrepresentation of women as both participants and authors. To investigate whether this underrepresentation may bias researchers' findings, we then conducted a meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess whether demographic characteristics of study participants were associated with a common outcome evaluated in VR research: the change in simulator sickness following head-mounted display VR exposure. As expected, participants in VR studies using HMDs experienced small but significant increases in simulator sickness. However, across the included studies, the change in simulator sickness was systematically associated with the proportion of female participants. We discuss the negative implications of conducting experiments on non-representative samples and provide methodological recommendations for mitigating bias in future VR research.