Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators

Female authorship trends in a high-impact Canadian medical journal: a 10-year cross-sectional series, 2013-2023

IMPORTANCE

Women are under-represented in senior roles within academic medicine, including as authors in high-impact journals.

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends and predictors of female authorship in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) as the only high-impact Canadian journal over a 10-year period to understand gender balances in Canadian academic publishing.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study analysed trends and predictors of female authorship in articles published in CMAJ from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2023.

SETTING

Data were extracted from PubMed for CMAJ, the only high-impact Canadian medical journal (impact factor ≥10). Data extraction used the RISmed package in R Studio.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included articles published in CMAJ within the specified period. Author gender was predicted using the validated Genderize.io software. Articles where the gender of the authors could not be predicted were excluded from analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The co-primary outcomes were proportions of female first and last authors. Statistical analyses included χ2 tests comparing proportions, Jonckheere and linear regression models to evaluate trends. Among multiauthor articles, multivariable logistic regression models assessed predictors of female first and last authorship.

RESULTS

From 5805 included articles, women comprised 47% of first authors and 43% of last authors (p<0.001), both significantly lower than men (p<0.001). Female first authorship increased by 17.7% and female last authorship by 10.5% over the study period (both p<0.05 for trend), reaching a majority (58%) and near parity (48%) in 2023, respectively. Female editor-in-chief and higher proportion of female coauthors were associated with higher odds of female first and last authors; female last authors were additionally associated with higher odds of female first authors.

INTERPRETATION

Women were under-represented in authorship overall, though female first and last authorship increased over time, with first authorship exceeding parity in recent years and last authorship nearing equal representation. Female editors-in-chief and a higher proportion of female coauthors were associated with greater female first and last authorship, while female last authorship was additionally associated with higher odds of female first authorship. These findings provide insight into authorship trends in a high-impact Canadian medical journal and may inform future efforts to support gender equity in academic publishing.

The missing data: A review of gender and sex disparities in research

This article highlights the gender data gaps in clinical trial inclusion and funding, with a particular focus on gynecologic oncology. Female patients have historically been excluded from clinical trials across all medical domains. Despite recent improvements, female patients remain underrepresented in key diseases, including several cancer types, despite experiencing increased burden of disease. Lack of representation is particularly stark for patients in racial, ethnic, and gender minoritized populations, including in gynecologic cancer trials. Furthermore, female health conditions receive disproportionately small amounts of funding relative to their disease burden. Despite their high lethality, gynecologic cancers, including ovarian, cervical, and uterine malignancies, rank among the lowest funded cancer sites from the National Cancer Institute. Likewise, there is significant bias against female investigators with regard to funding, publication, and academic advancement, which affects the prioritization of women's health. In combination, gender disparities at multiple steps along the research pathway from investigator and disease funding to trial inclusion to publication and dissemination of research perpetuate a significant data gap in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases affecting female patients, including gynecologic cancers. Strategies to improve this gender gap and prioritize women's health funding include increasing female representation in clinical trials with a specific focus on inclusion of patients from historically marginalized backgrounds, considering disease burden-based funding policies, and prioritizing female academic leadership opportunities.

New Directions For Women's Health: Expanding Understanding, Improving Research, Addressing Workforce Limitations

In the United States, the field of women's health faces critical challenges. This article, part of the National Academy of Medicine's Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities for 2025 initiative, emphasizes the need for a holistic, lifespan approach to women's health that considers biological sex, gender, and intersecting social factors. We identify three key challenges: broadening the understanding of women's health beyond reproductive issues, improving the research ecosystem, and addressing workforce limitations. With innovative policies and investments across all areas of health, attention to structural determinants, and emphasis on the upstream factors affecting women's lives, significant improvements in women's health outcomes and substantial societal benefits can be achieved in 2025 and beyond.

Early-stage investigators' experiences with an National Institutes of Health Pilot Award Program

Background

Academic-community research partnerships focusing on addressing the social determinants of health and reducing health disparities have grown substantially in the last three decades. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), however, are less likely to receive grant funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health, and we know little about the facilitators and barriers they face on their career journeys or the best ways to support them and their community research partnerships. This study examines ESIs' experiences with a program that funded and supported their community-partnered pilot health disparities research.

Methods

Fourteen ESIs from five cohorts of pilot investigators participated in in-depth focus groups between April 2020 and February 2024. Two reviewers independently identified significant quotes and created codes. Thematic analysis was used to develop relevant themes.

Results

The overarching theme was that the program was a launch pad for the ESIs' research careers. Four distinct sub-themes contributing to the launch pad theme were: (1) ESI Growth & Adaptation; (2) Community and Support; (3) The Value of Collaboration and Partnership; (4) Need for Effective Mentorship. The results suggest the program offered ESIs and community partners substantial, unique support and resources, but challenges remained.

Conclusions

Future programs helping ESIs who conduct community-engaged research to launch their research careers should consider implementing tailored support while offering strategies to eliminate or reduce institutional barriers, including strengthening mentoring.

Gender and Geographical Diversity in Authorship, Peer Reviewing, and Editorial Roles in the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Vascular Forum

Objective

Gender based disparities have been reported regarding principal investigator positions, authorship of medical published literature, reviewing roles, and representation in journal editorial boards. This study aimed to analyse gender and geographical differences in the authorship and editorial roles of the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Vascular Forum (EJVES VF).

Methods

An observational retrospective study was performed of all consecutive submissions to EJVES VF between 2020 - 2023. Data were gathered on: first author's gender, first author's professional country, last author's gender, number of authors per submission, article type, and final editorial decision. Gender and professional country of external reviewers and editorial staff were also analysed, as well as performance indicators. The statistical analysis was descriptive and chi squared and t tests were used.

Results

A total of 577 submitted papers were included. First authors were female (FFA) in 26.7% and 28.5% of submitted and accepted papers, and last authors (FLA) in 16.5% and 22%, respectively. The acceptance rate was 34.7% (n = 200), which was similar for FFA and male first authors (37% vs. 33.8%; p = .47). The FLA had a higher acceptance rate than male last authors (46.3% vs. 32.4%; p = 0.009). The acceptance rate of original research and review papers was 34.7% (n = 42), 28.2% (n = 101) for case reports, short reports, editorials, and surgical videos, and 52.2% for images, correspondence, and invited commentaries (p < .001). The highest acceptance rate was achieved by Europe (n = 334; 43.1%), followed by America (n = 68; 33.8%) and Australasia (n = 20; 30%) (p < .001). The journal had six female and ten male editors. The proportion of female reviewers rose from 12.4% in 2020 to 17% in 2023, and female editorial board members from 7% to 21%. Performance indicators were statistically similar for male and female reviewers.

Conclusion

Female authorship is under represented in submitted and published papers in EJVES VF, with important geographical differences. The number and percentage of female reviewers is increasing; their performance is comparable with their male colleagues.

Use of Promotional Language in Grant Applications and Grant Success

Importance

Scientific writing is critical for successfully showing the merits of innovative ideas to funding agencies, colleagues, and practitioners, and it has evolved over time, particularly in the increased use of promotional words.

Objectives

To evaluate whether promotional language in biomedical grant writing is associated with receipt of funding and to assess who uses promotional language in their grant applications, after accounting for principal investigators (PIs), grants, and other confounders.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study uses previously collected data on 2439 funded and rejected National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications from 2007 to 2019 and 9096 funded and rejected Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF) biomedical grant applications from 2015 to 2022, bibliographic data on the publications of each PI from OpenAlex, and fixed-effects regression analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Promotional language was measured using a validated dictionary of 139 science-specific terms. Grant application success was modeled as a binary outcome and was based on the percentage of promotional words, controlling for variables including characteristics of grants and PIs. The level of promotional words was modeled on the PI's grant-related characteristics.

Results

Of the 11 535 grants included in this study, the percentage of promotional words was positively associated with the probability of receiving funding (NNF grants: odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.25-1.71]; NIH grants: odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.10-2.11]). Younger PIs used more promotional language than the oldest PIs (1.2% vs 0.8%), men generally used more promotional language than women (1.0% vs 0.9%), and those requesting the highest funding amounts used more promotional language than those requesting the lowest funding amounts (1.1% vs 0.9%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the percentage of promotional language used in medical science grants was positively associated with receiving funding after accounting for PI, grant, and year confounds and that younger PIs, men PIs, and PIs requesting higher amounts of funding generally used more promotional language in their grants. These can patterns inform research strategies for communicating the merits of good ideas to funding agencies and other researchers.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement

1:  The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2:  ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3:  ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4:  ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5:  ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6:  ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7:  ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8:  ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9:  ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10:  ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11:  ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12:  ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Gender Differences in Citation Rate: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology High-Impact Journals Over Two Decades

Key Points

Among the studies included, women were first authors of minority of the publications, and this trend persisted over the 20 years. Crude citation rates were lower in papers with female first authors; the gender of the author was not independently associated with citation metrics.

Background

Historically, women's scientific contributions have been under-recognized. We investigated whether the number of citations, a key metric used for academic promotions and scientific productivity, differs in nephrology high-impact publications on the basis of author's gender.

Methods

We identified randomized clinical trials from 2000 to 2021 in ten high-impact journals. We assessed author gender, citations, h -index, m -index, years of active publishing, education, and grant funding. The main predictor of interest was the gender of the first author. The main outcome was the standardized citation count for analysis of the selected publications. In addition, we evaluated standardized author citation counts using the author, rather than the article.

Results

Among the selected publications, women were first authors of 65 (17.1%) and men of 315 (82.9%) articles. In crude analyses, publications with male first authors had a significantly higher median number of standardized citations (14 versus 10, P = 0.01). Adjusted analyses revealed m -index (β =29.48, P ≤ 0.01) and journal impact factor (β =0.78, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the standardized citation index. By contrast, neither the gender of the first author (β male gender=1.42, P = 0.71) nor of the last author (β male gender=8.89, P = 0.38) were significantly associated with the standardized citations. Similarly, in adjusted analyses on the basis of author profiles, male authorship was not significantly associated with the standardized author citation number (β male gender=−7.79, P = 0.08).

Conclusions

Our study highlights marked disparities in the overall number of women publishing high-impact nephrology trials and the number of articles with female scientists as first authors of high-impact trials in the nephrology literature. Although crude citation rates were lower in articles with female first authors, the gender of the first author was not independently associated with citation metrics. Addressing gender disparities in academic recognition requires nuanced approaches extending beyond authorship and a broader focus on complex factors that influence academic recognition and scientific contributions.

Pointing out geographic and gender disparities related to productivity indicators among Brazilian ecotoxicologists

Policies and actions related to diversity, equity, and inclusion have been discussed recently in Brazil, but there is still limited information available for most academic and knowledge fields, including ecotoxicology. This study aimed to describe the profile of Brazilian ecotoxicologists and assess gender and geographical disparities, especially regarding productivity indicators. An ecological study was conducted using data of the researchers registered in the open-access database of the Brazilian Society of Ecotoxicology, along with their respective curriculum data available on the Lattes Platform, which is the main registry portal for Brazilian researchers. The target population of our study was ecotoxicology researchers in academic educational institutions with a focus on human resource training. The data, collected in 2021, led to the inclusion of a total of 177 researchers in this study, with 62 men and 115 women, and 42.37% working in the southeastern region. Female researchers generally showed lower rates of scientific productivity when the analyzed metrics included research productivity scholarships, the number of articles published in scientific journals, and the number of articles published with international collaborations, compared to male researchers. Researchers from the southeastern and southern regions also had higher rates of productivity and human resource training compared to those from other regions of the country. The proportion of funding grants received was significantly higher among men, and this profile was also observed among researchers from the southern and southeastern regions, although with a smaller disparity. This means that there is an uneven distribution of funding grants from funding organizations, which favors men and urban centers. Our findings highlight gender and geographic disparities in the scientific production of ecotoxicologists working in Brazil and reinforce the existence of complex obstacles that need to be addressed and combated within scientific societies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1209-1216. © 2024 SETAC.

Sex differences in altmetric attention scores and traditional impact metrics of top-cited general surgery literature: Cracks in the ceiling?

BACKGROUND

Sex disparities have previously been identified in surgical academia. This study examines sex differences in the top-cited contemporary general surgery articles and compares Altimetric Attention Score (AAS) and other impact metrics between male and female corresponding authors (CAs).

METHODS

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles published between 2019 and 2021 in each of the top 10 general surgery journals based on the 2021 Journal Impact Factor. Impact metrics included AAS, citation count, and H-index of the CA. We used multivariable regression analyses to investigate whether the sex of the CA or first author (FA) was independently associated with AAS and citation count.

RESULTS

Among 1000 articles, 23.1% had female CAs and 27.4% female FAs. Female CA articles had higher AAS (13.0 [2.0-63.0] vs. 8.0 [1.0-28.5]; p < 0.001) and lower H-indices (24.0 [11.0-45.0] vs. 31.0 [17.0-50.0]; p = 0.015). Although median citation count did not differ by CA sex, articles with Level 1 evidence and a female CA were cited more often (35.5 [24.0-85.0] vs. 25.0 [16.0 vs. 46.0]; p < 0.05). In multivariable regression, female CA articles had higher AAS (OR: 1.002 [95% CI: 1.001-1.004]) and lower H-index (OR: 0.987 [95% CI: 0.977-0.997]).

CONCLUSION

Despite having similar citation counts, articles authored by female CAs exhibit higher AAS scores compared to those authored by their male counterparts. While it is heartening that research authored by female surgeons achieves significant visibility, it remains to be understood how this translates into academic impact and scholarly recognition.

Lack of women physician representation in the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine

Background

The increasing number of women physicians is in contrast to their underrepresentation in academic positions and professional associations. This study aimed to evaluate the status of women physicians in the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JHGM) based on society membership, board membership, and annual meeting authorship.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted. Information on women physicians, society and board membership, and annual meeting authorship was collected. Data from the Japanese Primary Care Association (JPCA) served as the control. The gender of authors with accepted abstracts in the JHGM and JPCA annual meetings was determined by name or Internet search.

Results

In the JHGM, 14.2% of members were women physicians, compared to 19.1% in the JPCA (p < 0.001). None of the 21 JHGM board members were women, compared to 20.5% in the JPCA (p < 0.001). The average number of years of experience was significantly higher for the JHGM board members than for the JPCA board members (37.0 vs. 28.1 years, p < 0.001). Women first authors in the 2022-2023 JHGM meeting comprised 17.9%, significantly lower than the 28.4% in the 2023 JPCA meeting (p = 0.002). Similar patterns were seen for women last authors (6.0% in the JHGM vs. 18.8% in the JPCA, p < 0.001) and women chairpersons (17.9% in the JHGM vs. 40.3% in the JPCA, p = 0.036).

Conclusions

The JHGM has low women representation in society and board membership, and annual meeting authorship. Strategies are needed to enhance diversity and inclusion by increasing women's participation and leadership in the JHGM.

Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science

How are the merits of innovative ideas communicated in science? Here, we conduct semantic analyses of grant application success with a focus on scientific promotional language, which may help to convey an innovative idea's originality and significance. Our analysis attempts to surmount the limitations of prior grant studies by examining the full text of tens of thousands of both funded and unfunded grants from three leading public and private funding agencies: the NIH, the NSF, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of the world's largest private science funding foundations. We find a robust association between promotional language and the support and adoption of innovative ideas by funders and other scientists. First, a grant proposal's percentage of promotional language is associated with up to a doubling of the grant's probability of being funded. Second, a grant's promotional language reflects its intrinsic innovativeness. Third, the percentage of promotional language is predictive of the expected citation and productivity impact of publications that are supported by funded grants. Finally, a computer-assisted experiment that manipulates the promotional language in our data demonstrates how promotional language can communicate the merit of ideas through cognitive activation. With the incidence of promotional language in science steeply rising, and the pivotal role of grants in converting promising and aspirational ideas into solutions, our analysis provides empirical evidence that promotional language is associated with effectively communicating the merits of innovative scientific ideas.

Gender(ed) science: How the institutionalization of gender continues to shape the conduct and content of women's health research

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women based on assumptions about biological sex. It also operates as a major social organizing principle that confers unequal power, status, and resources to men and women, with direct consequences for health. Historic patriarchal and misogynistic beliefs and values are reinforced through social institutions, including health science, which reify gender inequities. This commentary examines two key domains in which the social organization and institutionalization of gender in scientific research affect the conduct of women's health research and, by extension, women's health outcomes. These domains are: 1) decisions about which topics are prioritized, researched, and funded and 2) the dissemination of research findings. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a case study to illustrate broader patterns in scientific research, we present evidence of gender-based inequities in what is prioritized, deemed fundable, and disseminated, and how this affects knowledge production and attention to women's health. We highlight efforts and progress made by the NIH and call for additional attention to further address gender-based inequities and their impact on women's health research. We conclude with a call for critical social science analyses-ideally supported by the NIH-of the social organization of health science research to identify points of intervention for redressing deep-seated obstacles to advancing research on women's health.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled

BACKGROUND

The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.

Mind the Gap! Working Toward Gender Equity in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease: Present and Future

Evidence from medicine and other fields has shown that gender diversity results in better decision making and outcomes. The incoming workforce of congenital heart specialists (especially in pediatric cardiology) appears to be more gender balanced, but past studies have shown many inequities. Gender-associated differences in leadership positions, opportunities presented for academic advancement, and recognition for academic contributions to the field persist. In addition, compensation packages remain disparate if evaluated based on gender with equivalent experience and expertise. This review explores these inequities and has suggested individual and institutional changes that could be made to recruit and retain women, monitor the climate of the institution, and identify and eliminate bias in areas like salary and promotions.

Not so fast with fast funding

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have become increasingly dissatisfied with how science funding is distributed. Traditional grant funding processes are seen as stifling the creativity of researchers, in addition to being bureaucratic, slow, and inefficient. Consequently, there have been increasing popular calls to make "fast funding" - fast, unbureaucratic grant applications - a new standard for scientific funding. Though this approach to funding, implemented by Fast Grants, has been successful as a pandemic response strategy, we believe there are serious costs to its wide-scale adoption, particularly for transparency and equity, and that the purported benefits - increased creativity and efficiency - are unlikely to materialize. While traditional funding mechanisms are certainly not perfect, scientific communities should think twice before adopting fast funding as a new standard for funding.

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to 5 years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the United States.

Black women in HIV research: Intersectionality, positionality and our commitment to build a just research enterprise

Black women in the United States are disproportionately affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and are less likely to be represented among HIV clinical research participants relative to their cumulative HIV burden. Likewise, Black women are underrepresented in large federally funded HIV research portfolios. Extensive research has demonstrated that Black applicants and women applicants are less likely to receive R01 level funding from the National Institutes of Health, among all applicants. Support for a diverse biomedical research workforce, particularly researcher-participant concordance, has been widely accepted as a much-needed strategy to advance health outcomes among racial and ethnic and sex and gender minority communities. The benefits of employing a diverse research workforce include building trust among historically marginalized populations and support for diverse perspectives among investigative teams. In this paper, we explore intersectional challenges specific to Black women researchers in the development and implementation of HIV research, intervention, and programming efforts which include perceptions of Blackness, HIV research "turf," inequitable funding, institutional difficulties hiring Black women with lived experiences, and limitations in participant connectedness following study completion. We emphasize proposed solutions to support equitable, ethical, and culturally appropriate advancements in ending the HIV epidemic which are contextualized within Black women's unique intersectional identities and experiences.

Gender Diversity in the Psychiatric Workforce: It's Still a (White) Man's World in Psychiatry

Academic psychiatry has slightly higher rates of women in the upper ranks and leadership positions than academic medicine as a whole but women continue to be seriously underrepresented. Psychiatry departments should take specific steps to address barriers for women in psychiatry including harassment and discrimination, Imposter Syndrome, lack of mentorship and sponsorship, work-life integration issues, and overinvolvement in nonpromotion generating activities. Addressing these barriers within academic psychiatry will improve the environment for all minorities.

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to five years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the US.

Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors

The fairness of decisions made at various stages of the publication process is an important topic in meta-research. Here, based on an analysis of data on the gender of authors, editors and reviewers for 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions to the journal eLife, we report on five stages of the publication process. We find that the board of reviewing editors (BRE) is men-dominant (69%) and that authors disproportionately suggest male editors when making an initial submission. We do not find evidence for gender bias when Senior Editors consult Reviewing Editors about initial submissions, but women Reviewing Editors are less engaged in discussions about these submissions than expected by their proportion. We find evidence of gender homophily when Senior Editors assign full submissions to Reviewing Editors (i.e., men are more likely to assign full submissions to other men (77% compared to the base assignment rate to men RE of 70%), and likewise for women (41% compared to women RE base assignment rate of 30%))). This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. However, we do not find evidence for gender bias when authors appeal decisions made by editors to reject submissions. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias. Measures accounting for women's circumstances and needs (e.g., delaying discussions until all RE are engaged) and raising editorial awareness to women's needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication.

Diversifying faculty recruitment in biomedical sciences

A wealth of data has consistently demonstrated that a diverse faculty maximizes productivity and innovation in the research enterprise and increases the persistence and success of groups that are underrepresented in STEM. While the diversity of students in graduate programs has steadily increased, faculty diversity, particularly in the biomedical sciences, continues to remain relatively flat. Several issues contribute to this mismatch between the pipeline and the professoriate including biases in search and hiring practices, lack of equity and equal opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, and unwelcoming campus climates that lead to marginalization and isolation in academic life. A comprehensive approach that addresses these challenges is necessary for institutions of higher education to achieve their faculty diversity goals and create a climate where individuals from all groups feel welcomed and succeed. This article focuses on the first step in this approach-diversifying faculty recruitment through adopting search practices that generate an applicant pool that matches national availability, ensures equity in evaluation and hiring practices, and promotes inclusion and belonging in the hiring experience. These strategies have been recently used at the University of California, Irvine's School of Biological Sciences and while the long-term impact remains unknown, short-term outcomes in recruitment and hiring have demonstrated significant improvement over previous years.

The Gender Gap in Promotions: Inhibitors and Catalysts, Strategies to Close the Gap

The gender gap is an amalgam of gender disparity issues in the workplace ranging from fewer opportunities to network, decreased funding for research, microaggressions, nebulous promotional criteria and difficulty achieving the perception of professionalism because of inherent gender bias. Contributing home factors include more substantial household duties for women typically, spouses who also have a career, and the inherent delay associated with maternity leave for those who choose to have children. This article subdivides gender disparity that impedes promotion into experiences inside and outside the workplace. Disparities within the workplace are divided into directly quantified versus qualitative differences.

Demographic and Academic Productivity Trends Among American Head & Neck Society Fellows Over a 20-Year Period

Importance

Historical data reveal that, compared with women, men are more likely to pursue a head and neck surgical oncology fellowship, but little is known about possible gender differences in academic productivity.

Objective

To assess demographic trends and academic productivity among American Head & Neck Society (AHNS) fellowship graduates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used electronically published data from the AHNS on fellowship graduates in the US and Canada from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2022. Scopus was used to extract h-indices for each graduate.

Exposure

Scholarly activity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were changes in demographic characteristics and academic productivity among AHNS graduates over time. Data analysis included effect size, η2, and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 691 AHNS fellowship graduates (525 men [76%] and 166 women [24%]) were included. Over the study period, there was an increase in the number of programs offering a fellowship (η2, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89) and an increase in the absolute number of women who completed training (η2, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-0.78). Among early-career graduates pursuing an academic career, there was a small difference in the median h-index scores between men and women (median difference, 1.0; 95% CI, -1.1 to 3.1); however, among midcareer and late-career graduates, there was a large difference in the median h-index scores (midcareer graduates: median difference, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.2-6.8; late-career graduates: median difference, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.0-10.9). A higher percentage of women pursued academic positions compared with men (106 of 162 [65.4%] vs 293 of 525 [55.8%]; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, -5.3% to 12.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that women in head and neck surgery begin their careers with high levels of academic productivity. However, over time, a divergence in academic productivity between men and women begins to develop. These data argue for research to identify possible reasons for this observed divergence in academic productivity and, where possible, develop enhanced early faculty development opportunities for women to promote their academic productivity, promotion, and advancement into leadership positions.

Research and Nonresearch Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States between 2014 and 2021

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Concerns about the financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been reported in the United States over the past decade. However, since the 2014 launch of the federal transparency database, Open Payments, few documents have explored the whole picture of research and nonresearch payments to US nephrologists from industry sources. In this study, the authors found that 87% of nephrologists have received nonresearch payments, and the aggregate amount of these payments has been increasing since 2014. Only 12% of nephrologists received research payments; these recipients were disproportionately male. In addition, the top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch funds received 81% of all such payments. Nonresearch payments were larger among male nephrologists than among female nephrologists and increased by 8% annually among male nephrologists between 2014 and 2019.

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between nephrologists and the health care industry have been a concern in the United States over the past decade.

METHODS

To evaluate industry payments to nephrologists, we conducted a cross-sectional study examining nonresearch and research payments to all US nephrologists registered in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System between 2014 and 2021, using the Open Payments database. Payment data were descriptively analyzed on the basis of monetary value, and payment trends were evaluated by using a generalized estimating equations model.

RESULTS

From 2014 through 2021, 10,463 of 12,059 nephrologists (87%) received at least one payment from the US health care industry, totaling $778 million. The proportion of nephrologists who did not receive nonresearch payments varied each year, ranging from 38% to 51%. Nonresearch payments comprised 22% ($168 million) of overall industry payments in monetary value but 87% in the number of payments. Among those receiving payments, the median per-physician 8-year aggregated payment values were $999 in nonresearch payments and $102,329 in associated research payments. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments, but the per-physician amount did not differ. However, nonresearch payments were three times larger for male nephrologists and increased by 8% annually between 2014 and 2019 among male nephrologists but remained stable among female nephrologists. The top 5% of nephrologists receiving nonresearch payments received 81% of all such payments.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2014 and 2021, 87% of US nephrologists received at least one payment from the health care industry. Notably, nonresearch payments to nephrologists have been increasing since the Open Payments database's 2014 launch. Male nephrologists were more likely than female nephrologists to receive research payments.

Representation of Women in Published Articles at 3 Academic Pediatric Journals: 2001 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the representation of women authors and editorial board members at 3 pediatric journals.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of original research articles published in Pediatrics, The Journal of Pediatrics, and JAMA Pediatrics from 2001 to 2022. We analyzed five 1-year intervals and inferred the binary gender of authors by first name. Cochran-Armitage tests evaluated trends in gender proportion of authorship and editorial board membership over time. Pearson's χ2 tests compared United States (US) authorship position and faculty rank as determined by Association of American Medical Colleges' data.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2022, 4426 original research articles were studied (exclusion rate <1%). There was a 23.7%, 15.9%, and 28.8% increase in proportion of women as first authors, senior authors, and editorial board members globally, with all trends significant over time (P < .01). In 2022, US women were 67.3% of first authors, only slightly lower than the 68.6% of women junior faculty (P = .01). US women were 48.0% of US senior authors, equivalent to the 47.5% of US women senior faculty (P = .18). US women represented 47.4% of US editorial board members, equivalent to their percentage as senior faculty (P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of US and international women authorship and editorial board membership has steadily increased. The percentage of US women as junior faculty and first authors is almost equivalent. The percentage of US women as senior faculty, senior authors, and editorial board members is equivalent but significantly reduced from their junior faculty representation.

Gender disparity in Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant funding decisions among recipients from dermatology departments: a retrospective study

We investigated the extent of gender disparity among dermatologists awarded Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grants. Our results indicate that, between 2008 and 2022, CIHR grant recipients were disproportionately male, thereby substantiating the influence of system-level barriers during research funding decision-making.

Gender disparities among speakers at major spine conferences

PURPOSE

To examine ten-year trends in gender representation in speaking roles at major spine conferences.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Medical conferences play an important role in career opportunities. There is little analysis on gender representation of major spine conferences despite several studies demonstrating gender disparities within spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

SAMPLE

A total of 20,181 abstract speakers across 10 years of academic conferences for six spine societies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Percent of female abstract presenters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collated the annual meeting programs of six major spine conferences (North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Global Spine Congress (GSC), American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Spine Summit, and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS)) dating from 2013 to 2022. Departmental websites, society webpages, or personal social media were identified for images or the use of gendered pronouns in order to determine speaker gender for each speaker type. All categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Women constituted 1,816 (9.0%) of all 20,181 identified conference speakers. Female representation was highest at NASS (N=680, 12.2%) but lowest at CSRS (6.6%) and GSC (7.1%). Spine Summit (7.4%), IMAST (9.92%), and GSC (9.87%) demonstrated the largest annual percent increases in female representation. Institutions in Middle East and Africa (1.4%), and Central and South America (1.8%) supported the lowest percent of female speakers. Women were significantly less likely to be speakers or moderators/course faculty than to be podium abstract presenters (p<.001). The percent of women as invited speakers (10.4% vs. 5.5%, p=.001) and moderators (11.4% vs. 3.7%, p<.001) increased significantly over the study period, with annual increases of 8.8% and 20.8%, respectively, from 2013 to 2022 (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While academic spine societies have made significant progress in promoting gender representation, especially among invited speakers and session moderators, women continue to be underrepresented compared to the percent of women in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery.

Challenges and Opportunities for Data Science in Women's Health

The intersection of women's health and data science is a field of research that has historically trailed other fields, but more recently it has gained momentum. This growth is being driven not only by new investigators who are moving into this area but also by the significant opportunities that have emerged in new methodologies, resources, and technologies in data science. Here, we describe some of the resources and methods being used by women's health researchers today to meet challenges in biomedical data science. We also describe the opportunities and limitations of applying these approaches to advance women's health outcomes and the future of the field, with emphasis on repurposing existing methodologies for women's health.

Male Versus Female Authorship in Flagship Pediatric Orthopaedic Journals From 2002 to 2021

BACKGROUND

The evolution of female authorship in orthopaedic journals is reportedly rising, however, trends in pediatric orthopaedic publications have not been specifically studied, despite a higher proportion of female pediatric orthopaedic surgeons compared with orthopaedics at large. This study aimed to investigate trends in female first and senior authorship in 3 flagship pediatric orthopaedic journals over the past 20 years.

METHODS

All manuscripts from the "Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B, and Journal of Children's Orthopaedics" from 2002 to 2021 were evaluated from Ovid MEDLINE, and the data were extracted. We utilized the sex "Application Program Interface" algorithm to determine the sex of the first and senior authors. χ 2 tests were used to analyze the demographics of the first and senior author cohorts. Fisher exact test was used to assess the trends in male and female authorship, controlling for year and journal.

RESULTS

Of a total, 5499 individual first authors and 5794 senior authors were identified. Sex was determined for 83.5% of the authors. Female first authorship increased significantly from 2002 to 2021 (8.8% to 22.4%, P < 0.001), with women being more likely to publish as first authors in more recent years in each journal ( P < 0.001). Female senior authorship did not increase significantly over the same time period (10.8% to 12.8%, P = 0.238). There was significantly more male than female first and senior authors for all journals ( P <0.001 for both first and senior authors).

CONCLUSIONS

While female first authorship in prominent pediatric orthopaedic journals has increased significantly from 2002 to 2021, senior authorship has remained stagnant. In addition, female pediatric orthopaedic surgeons publish at rates lower than their prevalence in the field. This study serves as a benchmark for future studies looking at sex and authorship in hopes of better understanding the underlying complex issues.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Sex, racial, and ethnic diversity in clinical trials

Diverse representation in clinical trials is crucial to understand the efficacy and safety of drugs in minority groups. This review aims to (1) describe research participants' sex, racial, and ethnic diversity in clinical drug trials and (2) describe the sex distribution of researchers conducting the research. We reviewed all clinical drug trials published in the journals "Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics" and "Clinical and Translational Science" in 2000-2001 and 2020-2021 and analyzed the research participants' and researchers' demographics. We compared the race of the research participants with the concurrent race diversity of the reference population in the countries where the research was conducted. We identified 281 articles with 17,639 research participants. Approximately one-third of the research participants were women in both 2000-2001 and 2020-2021. The representation from racial minorities of Black and Asian people increased from 2000-2001 to 2020-2021, but Asian and Native American people are still under-represented in clinical drug trials today. The proportion of female authors increased, but female authors still made up less than 40% of the total number of authors in 2020-2021. In conclusion, men are still over-represented in clinical pharmacology research, and some races are still vastly under-represented. Furthermore, although the proportion of female authors increased with time, they are still under-represented as first and last authors.

Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science

The advent of large-scale datasets that trace the workings of science has encouraged researchers from many different disciplinary backgrounds to turn scientific methods into science itself, cultivating a rapidly expanding 'science of science'. This Review considers this growing, multidisciplinary literature through the lens of data, measurement and empirical methods. We discuss the purposes, strengths and limitations of major empirical approaches, seeking to increase understanding of the field's diverse methodologies and expand researchers' toolkits. Overall, new empirical developments provide enormous capacity to test traditional beliefs and conceptual frameworks about science, discover factors associated with scientific productivity, predict scientific outcomes and design policies that facilitate scientific progress.

Lifting as we climb: Experiences and recommendations from women in neural engineering

Neural engineering is an emerging and multidisciplinary field in which engineering approaches are applied to neuroscience problems. Women are underrepresented in engineering fields, and indeed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields generally. Underrepresentation of women is particularly notable at later academic career stages, suggesting that even though women are interested in the field, barriers exist that ultimately cause them to leave. Here, we investigate many of the obstacles to women's success in the field of neural engineering and provide recommendations and materials to overcome them. We conducted a review of the literature from the past 15 years regarding the experiences of women in academic careers, as well as reports on the number of women in fields closely related to neural engineering from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Additionally, we interviewed six women in neural engineering who are involved in initiatives and outreach concerning the inclusion and experiences of women in engineering. Throughout the literature and interviews, we identified common themes spanning the role of identity and confidence, professional relationships, career-related hurdles, and personal and professional expectations. We explore each of these themes in detail and provide resources to support the growth of women as they climb within the field of neural engineering.

Contributions of Women to Cardiovascular Science Over Two Decades: Authorship, Leadership, and Mentorship

Background Women remain underrepresented in cardiology. We aimed to assess gender trends in research authorship, authorship in leading roles, mentorship, and research team diversity. Methods and Results We identified "cardiac and cardiovascular systems" journals from 2002 to 2020 using Journal Citation Reports 2019 (Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics). Gender authorship, mentorship, research team diversity, and trends were assessed. Associations between author gender and impact factor, journal region, and cardiology subspecialties were analyzed. Analysis of 396 549 research papers from 122 journals showed the percentage of women authors increased from 16.6% to 24.6% (β=0.38 [95% CI, 0.29-0.46]; P<0.001), whereas the proportion of women first (β=-0.03 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.004]; P=0.09) or last authors (β=-0.017 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.006]; P=0.15) was unchanged. Compared with men last authors, women last authors were more likely to mentor women first authors and lead more diverse research teams (both P<0.001). Journal impact factor was related to percentage of women authors overall (Spearman's correlation coefficient R_S=0.208 [95% CI, 0.02-0.38]; P=0.03) but not first or last women authors (both P>0.5). Women comprised 18.4%-25.7% of authors in cardiology subspecialties. Journal region and author gender were unrelated (all P>0.4). Conclusions Women's inclusion as authors of cardiology papers increased slightly over the past 2 decades, yet the proportions of women in first and last authorship roles were unchanged. Women are increasingly likely to mentor women first authors and lead diverse research teams. Women last authors are essential to increasing diversity of future independent investigators and inclusive research teams, both of which are associated with innovation and excellence in science.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Gender Distribution of Authors of Evaluation Letters for Promotion at One Medical School

PURPOSE

Women remain underrepresented in key leadership positions and advanced ranks in academic medicine. This study examines the numbers of men and women letter writers for promotion candidates during a 5-year period across departments, tracks, ranks, and candidate gender.

METHOD

A descriptive study characterized the gender of evaluation letter writers for candidates for promotion to associate or full professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School between 2015 and 2020. Letter writer and candidate gender were characterized by self-identified pronouns in the faculty biography or dossier. Letter writer gender was described by candidate department, promotion track, rank, terminal degree, and gender.

RESULTS

Among 299 candidates for promotion, 172 (58%) were men and 127 (42%) were women; dossiers included 3,995 evaluation letters. Across all years, men wrote more letters than women (external letters, range, 69% in 2019-2020 to 75% in 2015-2016; internal letters, range, 67% in 2018-2019 to 77% in 2015-2016). Candidates in the family medicine and pediatrics departments had the highest percentages of letters written by women (44% and 40%, respectively). No differences were found in the number of women letter writers by candidate promotion track; however, differences were found by candidate rank (associate professor, 30%; full professor, 23%) and terminal degree (MD/DO, 25%; PhD, 33%; MD-PhD, 20%). Regardless of candidate gender, most evaluation letters were written by men. Women candidates had 15% to 20% more letters authored by women than men candidates (34%-40% vs 18%-23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The gender pattern of letter writers may reflect implicit biases regarding gender and perceived leadership status, expertise, and success. Adopting policies that promote or require gender diversity among letter writers for promotion candidates may provide an opportunity to encourage faculty to seek diverse networks and recognize the achievements of women faculty.

Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists

Importance

Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting.

Objective

To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions.

Results

This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Gender analysis of Journal of Perinatology authorship during COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

To examine authorship gender distributions before and during COVID-19 in the Journal of Perinatology.

STUDY DESIGN

We collected data from the Journal of Perinatology website. The author gender was determined using Genderize.io or a systematic internet search. Our primary outcome was the difference between the number of published articles authored by women during the pandemic period (March 2020-May 2021, period two), compared with the preceding 15-month period (period one). We analyzed the data using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Publications increased from period one to two by 8.9%. There were slightly more female than male first (62%) and overall (53%) authors, but fewer last authors (43%) for the combined time periods. Female authorship distribution was not different between periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Though publications increased overall, authorship gender distribution did not change significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Women authors remain underrepresented overall and specifically as last author, considering the majority of neonatologists are women.

Physician Wellness in Academic Cardiovascular Medicine: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Academic medicine as a practice model provides unique benefits to society. Clinical care remains an important part of the academic mission; however, equally important are the educational and research missions. More specifically, the sustainability of health care in the United States relies on an educated and expertly trained physician workforce directly provided by academic medicine models. Similarly, the research charge to deliver innovation and discovery to improve health care and to cure disease is key to academic missions. Therefore, to support and promote the growth and sustainability of academic medicine, attracting and engaging top talent from fellows in training and early career faculty is of vital importance. However, as the health care needs of the nation have risen, clinicians have experienced unprecedented demand, and individual wellness and burnout have been examined more closely. Here, we provide a close look at the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine and propose system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this model.

Engagement patterns with female and male scientists on Facebook

Social networks are becoming powerful agents mediating between science and the public. Considering the public tendency to associate science with men makes investigating representations of female scientists in social media important. Here we set out to find whether the commenting patterns to text-based science communication are similar. To examine these, we collected and analyzed posts (165) and their comments (10,006) published between 2016 and 2018 on an Israeli popular science Facebook page. We examined post characteristics as well as the relevance and sentiment of comments. Several gendered differences in commenting patterns emerged. Posts published by female scientists received more irrelevant and fewer relevant comments. Female scientists received more hostile and positive comments. These findings are consistent with results of previous research, but also demonstrate a more nuanced understanding that when female scientists write using scientific jargon (usually an unwanted feature of popular science writing), they received less hostile comments and were given less advice.