Impact of COVID-19 on longitudinal ophthalmology authorship gender trends

Gender inclusivity of ophthalmology journal submission guidelines and associated research metrics

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study evaluated the prevalence of inclusive author submission guidelines across ophthalmology journals.

METHODS

Journals were identified from the 2021 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics). Independent reviewers rated each author submission guideline as "inclusive" for satisfying at-least one of six criteria: i) included examples of gender inclusive language; ii) recommended the use of gender-inclusive language; iii) distinguished between sex and gender; iv) provided educational resources on gender-inclusive language; v) provided a policy permitting name changes (e.g., in case of gender and name transition); and/or vi) provided a statement of commitment to inclusivity. The primary objective was to investigate the proportion of journals with "gender-inclusive" author submission guidelines and the elements of the gender-inclusive content within these guidelines. A secondary objective was to review the association between "gender-inclusivity" in author submission guidelines with publisher, origin country, and journal/source/influence metrics (Clarivate Analytics).

RESULTS

Across 94 journals, 29.8% journals were rated as inclusive. Inclusive journals had significantly higher relative impact factor, citations, and article influence scores compared to non-inclusive journals. Of the 29.8% of inclusive journals, the three most common domains were inclusion of an inclusivity statement (71.4% of inclusive journals), distinguishing between sex and gender (67.9%), and provision of additional educational resources on gender reporting for authors (60.7%).

CONCLUSION

A minority of ophthalmology journals have gender-inclusive author submission guidelines. Ophthalmology journals should update their submission guidelines to advance gender equity of both authors and study participants and promote the inclusion of gender-diverse communities.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric faculty: a report from nine academic institutions

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic affected home and work routines, which may exacerbate existing academic professional disparities. Objectives were to describe the impact of the pandemic on pediatric faculty's work productivity, identify groups at risk for widening inequities, and explore mitigation strategies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of faculty members was conducted at nine U.S. pediatric departments. Responses were analyzed by demographics, academic rank, and change in home caregiving responsibility.

RESULTS

Of 5791 pediatric faculty members eligible, 1504 (26%) completed the survey. The majority were female (64%), over 40 years old (60%), and assistant professors (47%). Only 7% faculty identified as underrepresented in medicine. Overall 41% reported an increase in caregiving during the pandemic. When comparing clinical, administrative, research, and teaching activities, faculty reported worse 1-year outlook for research activities. Faculty with increased caregiving responsibilities were more likely to report concerns over delayed promotion and less likely to have a favorable outlook regarding clinical and research efforts. Participants identified preferred strategies to mitigate challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted pediatric faculty productivity with the greatest effects on those with increased caregiving responsibilities. COVID-19 was particularly disruptive to research outlook. Mitigation strategies are needed to minimize the long-term impacts on academic pediatric careers.

IMPACT

The COVID-19 pandemic most negatively impacted work productivity of academic pediatric faculty with caregiving responsibilities. COVID-19 was particularly disruptive to short-term (1-year) research outlook among pediatric faculty. Faculty identified mitigation strategies to minimize the long-term impacts of the pandemic on academic pediatric career pathways.

A qualitative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on gender biases in an Irish University

This paper explores the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on gender biases in a STEM Faculty in an Irish University. For the purposes of this research, gender bias was understood as gender-based inclinations or prejudices which affect researchers' personal and professional opportunities as described by fifteen interviewees (nine women, six men). We used thematic interviews to explore participants' perspectives. Analyzing interviews with an inductive approach showed that gender biases experienced before COVID-19 restrictions were different from biases during restrictions. In discussing gender biases prior to the pandemic, interviewees mentioned institutional disparities, discrimination, implicit biases, stereotypes and gender roles. When discussing gender issues during COVID restrictions, interviewees mentioned disparities at home, challenges involved in parenting, support from colleagues and the University, as well as negative and positive impacts of restrictions on existing gender issues. Our results show that while COVID-19 restrictions and the associated consequences constrained all gender groups, they most negatively affected women researchers with caring responsibilities. Moving forward, reducing gender disparities requires promoting a horizontal organizational structure, and adjusting policies and work arrangements to cater for vulnerable cohorts such as parents, and international and early-career researchers. Offering a hybrid working model that grants more flexibility to those with caring responsibilities and which accommodates personal circumstances would help improve the working conditions for all researchers and nurture an organizational culture of care for the employees; thereby also fostering gender equity and tolerance.

The annual conference of the Irish College of Ophthalmologists: examining over a decade of trends

BACKGROUND

The annual conference of the Irish College of Ophthalmologists (ICO) is a key calendar event for ophthalmology research in Ireland.

AIMS

We investigated whether there were identifiable trends across various domains for the last twelve ICO meetings. Our objectives were to assess subspeciality and training centre representation, as well as the characteristics of the first author to include gender and stage of training.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of paper and poster presentations from the ICO annual conference yearbooks was conducted. The representation of subspecialties, affiliated institutions, and gender distribution were noted for both categories. For paper presentations, the author's career stage, full-text publication rates, and impact factors were also determined.

RESULTS

A total of 306 paper presentations and 306 poster presentations were analysed. The subspecialty of retina had the highest representation within both sections. The overall mean publication rate was 38% (range, 6-39%), with a mean journal impact factor of 2.02. No statistically significant differences in gender noted with regard to poster, paper, or publications (p < 0.9, p < 0.1, p < 0.7, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review of all research contributions to the ICO conference. We found that there is a need to promote research in some underrepresented subspecialities and training centres. No significant gender bias was found. There is scope to improve the publication conversion rate; this would allow for greater dissemination of the research presented at the ICO meeting.

Female authorship trends and the effect of COVID-19 on cataract and refractive surgery literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether gender barriers persist specifically in the cataract and refractive surgery (CRS) literature. In addition, no literature exists investigating the long-term effect of COVID-19 on female authorship in ophthalmology past 2020.

SETTING

Scopus 2015 to 2022.

DESIGN

Retrospective data review.

METHODS

Articles published in the Journal of Refractive Surgery and the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery were recorded from January 2015 to February 2022 from Scopus. Articles with only 1 author or where gender could not be identified were excluded. The first author (FA) gender, senior author (SA) gender, affiliated country, type of literature, and number of citations were collected. Pearson chi-squared tests with phi coefficients and multivariate logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

3153 articles were included in analysis. There were 910 works with female FAs and 648 with female SAs. Gender did not predict publishing in one journal over the other (P > .050). Women made up less than 30% of authorship of all types of literature, except for prospective/observational studies as FA (31.3%). Compared with before 2020, female FAs from 2020 onward were associated with increased retrospective analysis (phi = 0.072, P = .030) and letters/editorials (phi = 0.134, P < .001) but decreased case reports (phi = 0.087, P = .009) and "others" (phi = -0.164, P < .001). Similar associations were observed for female SAs. Females were more likely to publish in Asian countries. Female SAs predicted an increased likelihood of female FAs (odds ratio, 1.401, 95% CI, 1.165-1.684, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparities exist in authorship of the CRS literature. COVID-19 has altered the types of literature published by women, but men still publish most of all types of CRS research.

Gender-specific effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on scientific publishing productivity: Impact and resilience

RATIONALE

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic led to drastic social restrictions globally. Early data suggest that women in science have been more adversely affected by these lockdowns than men, with relatively fewer scientific articles authored by women. However, these observations test broad populations with many potential causes of disparity. Australia presents a natural experimental condition where several states of similar demographics and disease impact had differing approaches in their social isolation strategies. The state of Victoria experienced 280 days of lockdowns from 2020 to 2021, whereas the comparable state of New South Wales experienced 107 days, most of these in 2021, and other states even fewer restrictions.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To assess how the gender balance changed in Australian biomedical publishing with the lockdowns, we created a custom workflow to analyse PubMed data from more than 120,000 published articles submitted in 2019-2021 from Australian authors.

RESULTS

Broadly, Australian women have been incredibly resilient to the challenges faced by the lockdowns. There was an increase in the number of published articles submitted in 2020 that was equally due to women as men, including from Victoria. On the other hand, articles specifically addressing COVID-19 were significantly less likely to be authored by women than those on other topics, a finding not likely due to particular gender imbalance in virology or viral epidemiology, since publications on HIV followed similar patterns to previous years. By 2021, this imbalance had reversed, with more COVID-19-related papers authored by women than men.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest women from Victoria were less able to rapidly transition to new research early in the pandemic but had accommodated to the new conditions by 2021. This work indicates we need strategies to support women in science as the pandemic continues and to continue to monitor the situation for its impact on vulnerable groups.

Academic Productivity of Equity-Deserving Physician Scholars During COVID-19: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new barriers and exacerbated existing inequities for physician scholars. While COVID-19's impact on academic productivity among women has received attention, the pandemic may have posed additional challenges for scholars from a wider range of equity-deserving groups, including those who hold multiple equity-deserving identities. To examine this concern, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature through an intersectionality lens.

METHOD

The authors searched peer-reviewed literature published March 1, 2020, to December 16, 2021, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. The authors excluded studies not written in English and/or outside of academic medicine. From included studies, they extracted data regarding descriptions of how COVID-19 impacted academic productivity of equity-deserving physician scholars, analyses on the pandemic's reported impact on productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, and strategies provided to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups.

RESULTS

Of 11,587 unique articles, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 15 nonempirical studies and 29 empirical studies (22 bibliometrics studies, 6 surveys, and 1 qualitative study). All included articles focused on the gendered impact of the pandemic on academic productivity. The majority of their recommendations focused on how to alleviate the burden of the pandemic on women, particularly those in the early stages of their career and/or with children, without consideration of scholars who hold multiple and intersecting identities from a wider range of equity-deserving groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate a lack of published literature on the pandemic's impact on physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, including a lack of consideration of physician scholars who experience multiple forms of discrimination. Well-intentioned measures by academic institutions to reduce the impact on scholars may inadvertently risk reproducing and sustaining inequities that equity-deserving scholars faced during the pandemic.

Burnout from Gender Inequity in a Pandemic

Women represent approximately one-third of all anesthesiologists in the United States. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, research regarding gender bias in anesthesiology defined the scope of the problem. Unfortunately, the pandemic exposed and expanded the imbalances associated with gender, placing women anesthesiologists as both primary caregivers in the home and on the frontlines of health care. These systemic inequities exacerbated burnout in women anesthesiologists. Several initiatives that can improve well-being and the work culture for all anesthesiologists, including women, will also be discussed.

Further Divided Gender Gaps in Research Productivity and Collaboration during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Coronavirus-related Literature

Based on publication data on coronavirus-related fields, this study applies a difference in differences approach to explore the evolution of gender inequalities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the differences in the numbers and shares of authorships, leadership in publications, gender composition of collaboration, and scientific impacts. We find that, during the pandemic: (1) females’ leadership in publications as the first author was negatively affected; (2) although both females and males published more papers relative to the pre-pandemic period, the gender gaps in the share of authorships have been strengthened due to the larger increase in males’ authorships; (3) the share of publications by mixed-gender collaboration declined; (4) papers by teams in which females play a key role were less cited in the pre-pandemic period, and this citation disadvantage was exacerbated during the pandemic; and (5) gender inequalities regarding authorships and collaboration were enhanced in the initial stage of COVID-19, widened with the increasing severity of COVID-19, and returned to the pre-pandemic level in September 2020. This study shows that females’ lower participation in teams as major contributors and less collaboration with their male colleagues also reflect their underrepresentation in science in the pandemic period. This investigation significantly deepens our understanding of how the pandemic influenced academia, based on which science policies and gender policy changes are proposed to mitigate the gender gaps.

Influence of Author's Gender on the Peer-Review Process in Vision Science

PURPOSE

To investigate the gender gap in first/last authors in vision science and whether gender affects manuscript review times.

DESIGN

Observational retrospective database study.

METHODS

First/last author's gender and country were assigned to 30 438 PubMed records (data derived from Q1-Q2 Ophthalmology journals for 2016-2020). Using mixed models, the influence of First Author Female (FAF) and Last Author Female (LAF) were evaluated on the manuscripts' review timeline. This analysis was performed globally and in predefined subgroups (English names, Asian names, specific topics). Additionally, the gender GAP was explored by country, journal, and research topics.

RESULTS

The percentages of FAF/LAF were unevenly distributed by country; in the top 30 ophthalmology journals, FAF accounted for 40.0%±6.7% of the publications whereas LAF accounted for 27.1%±4.9%. Overall, FAF/LAF papers underwent significantly longer times to be reviewed (up to +10 days) and accepted (+5 days). These differences persisted when only English names-easily recognizable worldwide-were considered, but not for Asian names. Delays >1 month to get published were found for FAF in 3 of 4 topics analyzed (eg, amblyopia).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences were found in both review and acceptance times for FAF or LAF papers. The causes for this are likely multifactorial and could be explained by a combination of gender bias and by women's concerns with being held to higher standards, something that has been previously documented, thereby perhaps delaying the rebuttal to reviewers. Increased awareness of this source of potential bias may assist in the implementation of preventive and corrective measures.

Scientific authorship by gender: trends before and during a global pandemic

Many fields of science are still dominated by men. COVID-19 has dramatically changed the nature of work, including for scientists, such as lack of access to key resources and transition to online teaching. Further, scientists face the pandemic-related stressors common to other professions (e.g., childcare, eldercare). As many of these activities fall more heavily on women, the pandemic may have exacerbated gender disparities in science. We analyzed self-identified gender of corresponding author for 119,592 manuscripts from 151 countries submitted January 2019 to July 2021 to the Institute of Physics (IOP) portfolio of 57 academic journals, with disciplines of astronomy and astrophysics, bioscience, environmental science, materials, mathematics, physics, and interdisciplinary research. We consider differences by country, journal, and pre-pandemic versus pandemic periods. Gender was self-identified by corresponding author for 82.9% of manuscripts (N = 99,114 for subset of submissions with gender). Of these manuscripts, authors were 82.1% male, 17.8% female, and 0.08% non-binary. Most authors were male for all countries (country-specific values: range 0.0-100.0%, median 86.1%) and every journal (journal-specific values range 63.7-91.5%, median 83.7%). The contribution of female authors was slightly higher in the pandemic (18.7%) compared to pre-pandemic (16.5%). However, prior to the pandemic, the percent of submissions from women had been increasing, and this value slowed during the pandemic. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find that manuscript submissions from women decreased during the pandemic, although the rate of increased submissions evident prior to the pandemic slowed. In both pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, authorship was overwhelmingly male for all journals, countries, and fields. Further research is needed on impacts of the pandemic on other measures of scientific productivity (e.g., accepted manuscripts, teaching), scientific position (e.g., junior vs. senior scholars), as well as the underlying gender imbalance that persisted before and during the pandemic.

Gender of Award Recipients in Major Ophthalmology Societies

PURPOSE

To assess the gender distribution of major ophthalmology society award recipients DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study METHODS: The study population included award recipients from 9 ophthalmologic societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Glaucoma Society, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Society of Retina Specialists, American Uveitis Society, Cornea Society, and North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society. A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Main outcome measures were gender distribution by award society, year (1970-2020), type (lectureship or not), category (achievement, education, research contribution, research item, international member achievement, public service-global health, service to society), and training level.

RESULTS

Out of 2,150 recipients for 78 awards, 1,606 (74.7%) were men and 544 (25.3%) were women. The proportion of women recipients increased from 0% in 1970 to 33.2% in 2020 (P < .001). Women representation varied within each society (P < .01), with ASCRS having the highest percentage (40.8%). Women received 11.0% of awards accompanied by a lecture. Women received a significantly greater proportion of research-related awards than achievement or service awards. Awards for trainees and early-career ophthalmologists had a greater proportion of women (39.8%) than the rest of the awards (21.5%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, women received awards (25.3%) at a higher rate than the average 1970-2020 American gender distributions of ophthalmologists. However, women are still under-represented in many award categories and subspecialties.

Gender Gap in Neurology Research Authorship (1946-2020)

Gender disparity in the field of neurology impedes scientific advancements and innovations. In 2018, 45.0% of neurology and neurological subspecialty residents were women. Despite a notable rise in the proportion of women neurologists over the past decades, inequalities regarding publication proportions between men and women persist in the field. This cohort study examines authorship trends in articles published in 155 international neurology journals, identified as those listed in the annual Journal Citation Reports' “Clinical Neurology” section. Authors' names, authorship positions and countries of affiliation were extracted from PubMed for indexed articles published from 1946 to 2020. Gender-API (a validated and highly accurate application program interface) assigned binary genders to authors. Author gender proportions were compared across subspecialties, authorship position and years. In 303,385 unique articles, 1,663,036 total authors were identified of which 34.1% were women. Neuroradiology demonstrated the lowest proportion of women authors (21.3%), while neurogenetics displayed the highest (44.5%). In articles with multiple authors, both men and women last authors were more likely to publish with a male first author, though this was significantly more pronounced for men last authors (1.86 vs. 1.08; p < 0.001). From 2002 to 2020, women remained in the minority of last (24.6%), first (36.2%), and middle author positions (35.8%). The authorship gender distribution in neurological journals neither reflects the gender proportion of neurologists in the field overall nor in any subspecialty examined. We also find a tendency for senior and junior authors of the same gender to publish together which perpetuates authorship inequity. Further work is needed to identify underlying causes so that interventions might be developed to improve authorship diversity.