Assessing the gap in female authorship in the journal Emergency Radiology: trends over a 20-year period

Assessing the gender gap in musculoskeletal radiology authorship across three continents: are really the "ladies first"?

AIM

To assess gender-specific authorship trends in musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology in three major radiology journals, Skeletal Radiology (SR), Clinical Radiology (CR) and Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging (IJRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of articles pertaining to MSK radiology was done for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 for SR and CR and for the years 2010 and 2020 for IJRI. The number and positions of female authors was noted.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-five articles were reviewed after excluding the articles where the gender of one or more authors could not be conclusively determined. In SR, the percentage of female authors increased significantly from 4% in 2000 to 17% in 2010 (p<0.0001) and to 21.9% in 2020 (p<0.0001) with an increase in the percentage of first female authors from 0.8% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2010 and further to 5.4% in 2020. In CR, the percentage of female authors reduced from 13.8% in 2000 to 13.6% in 2010 (p=0.9798 and further reduced to 7% in 2020 (p=0.1592). In IJRI, the percentage of articles with no female authors went down from 36.4% (2010) to 26.7% (2020).

CONCLUSION

There is an upward trend in female authorship in MSK radiology related articles in SR and IJRI with continued under-representation in CR. The first and middle order female authors have shown a significant increase, although the number of last female authors remains very low. Analysis of such trends in academic journals from other subspecialities in medicine needs to be undertaken to confirm or refute the findings of this study.

Small female citation advantages for US journal articles in medicine

Female under-representation continues in senior roles within academic medicine, potentially influenced by a perception that female research has less citation impact. This article provides systematic evidence of (a) female participation rates from the perspective of published journal articles in 46 Scopus medical subject categories 1996–2018 and (b) gender differences in citation rates 1996–2014. The results show female proportion increases 1996–2018 in all fields and a female majority of first-authored articles in two-fifths of categories, but substantial differences between fields. A paper is 7.3 times more likely to have a female first author in Obstetrics and Gynaecology than in Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. Only three fields had a female last author majority by 2018, a probable side effect of ongoing problems with appointing female leaders. Female first-authored research tended to be more cited than male first-authored research in most fields (59%), although with a maximum difference of only 5.1% (log-transformed normalised citations). In contrast, male last-authored research tends to be more cited than female last-authored research, perhaps due to cases where a senior male has attracted substantial funding for a project. These differences increase if team sizes are not accounted for in the calculations. Since female first-authored research is cited slightly more than male first-authored research, properly analysed bibliometric data considering career gaps should not disadvantage female candidates for senior roles.

A comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in Skeletal Radiology since inception from 1976 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to explore authorship trends within the musculoskeletal radiology subspecialty-focused journal, Skeletal Radiology, from inception to 2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Skeletal Radiology articles published in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2006, 2016, and 2020 were reviewed. For each article, the number of authors, the number of distinct institutions, the names of first and last authors, the country of the first author, the article length, and the number of article references were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 885 articles passed the exclusion criteria to be included in the study. Since inception, there has been a significant increase in the number of SR articles published (P = 0.02), the mean number of authors per article (P < 0.01), the mean number of references per article (P < 0.01), the mean number of distinct institutions per article (P = 0.02), and the mean number of pages per article (P < 0.01). The proportion of female first and last authors significantly increased (P = 0.02, P = 0.02). There was a significant increase in the proportion of articles published from Asia (P = 0.04). However, no significant changes in the proportion of articles published from other regions were observed.

CONCLUSION

Similar to authorship trends in other medical journals, Skeletal Radiology demonstrated upward trends in authorship count, distinct institutional count, and article length. A rise in first and last female authorship was observed. Finally, an increase in the proportion of authors from Asia was observed while no significant changes in the proportion of authors from other regions were demonstrated.

Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review

CONTEXT

Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals.

METHODS

A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women.

RESULTS

A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.

Do Gender-Based Disparities in Authorship and Editorship Exist in Healthcare Simulation Journals? A Bibliometric Review of the Research

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Publication in peer-reviewed journals, and serving on editorial boards, is considered an indicator of academic productivity and success, and a means of influencing discourse and practice in a field. This bibliometric review explored gender in authorship, and editorship, across the 3 existing English language, nonspecialty specific healthcare simulation journals. In total, 40.4% of publications had women first authors and 34.4% had women senior authors. There were no differences by journal and no apparent changes over time. Poor participation of women on editorial boards (38.1% of editorial board members were women) was observed. The observed level of representation of women as first and senior authors, and on editorial boards, is comparable with other health sciences domains but nonetheless warrants attention and improvement. Future research examining the profile of those working within simulation or evaluating strategies to improve the participation of women within healthcare simulation research and journals would be of interest.

Female Authorship in Radiology: Trends in the Past Decade in CARJ

Purpose:

To identify trends in female authorship in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) from 2010 to 2019.

Methods:

We retrieved papers published in the CARJ over a 10-year period, and retrospectively reviewed 602 articles. All articles except editorials and advertisements were included. We categorized the names of the first and last position authors as female or male and excluded articles that had at least one author of which gender was not known. We compared the trends in the first and last position authors of the articles from 2010 to 2019. For statistical analysis, logistic regression was performed with reported odds ratios (ORs), and a P value of <.05 was defined as statistically significant.

Results:

Five hundred thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. Among them, 23 articles with a single author were classified as having only a first author. 39.8% (204/513) of first authors were female and 26.9% (132/490) of last authors were female. There has been an overall temporal increase in the odds of both the first and last author being female in CARJ publications (OR: 1.11, P = .034). Similarly, the odds a CARJ publication’s first author being female increased over time (OR: 1.07, P = .033). Female last author did not predict female first author (OR: 1.48, P = .056). There was no association identified between female last author and year of publication (OR: 1.04, P = .225).

Conclusion:

There has been an overall increase in engagement of female authorship in CARJ.

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

CONTEXT

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal's tenure.

DATA SOURCES

All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors' varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

Emergency Radiology: Current Challenges and Preparing for Continued Growth

The escalation of imaging volumes in the emergency department and intensifying demands for rapid radiology results have increased the demand for emergency radiology. The provision of emergency radiology is essential for nearly all radiology practices, from the smallest to the largest. As our radiology specialty responds to the challenge posed by the triple threat of providing 24-7 coverage, high imaging volumes, and rapid turnaround time, various questions regarding emergency radiology have emerged, including its definition and scope, unique operational demands, quality and safety concerns, impact on physician well-being, and future directions. This article reviews the current challenges confronting the subspecialty of emergency radiology and offers insights into preparing for continued growth.

Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences

Evidence suggests that women in academia are hindered by conscious and unconscious biases, and often feel excluded from formal and informal opportunities for research collaboration. In addition to ensuring fairness and helping to redress gender imbalance in the academic workforce, increasing women’s access to collaboration could help scientific progress by drawing on more of the available human capital. Here, we test whether researchers tend to collaborate with same-gendered colleagues, using more stringent methods and a larger dataset than in past work. Our results reaffirm that researchers co-publish with colleagues of the same gender more often than expected by chance, and show that this ‘gender homophily’ is slightly stronger today than it was 10 years ago. Contrary to our expectations, we found no evidence that homophily is driven mostly by senior academics, and no evidence that homophily is stronger in fields where women are in the minority. Interestingly, journals with a high impact factor for their discipline tended to have comparatively low homophily, as predicted if mixed-gender teams produce better research. We discuss some potential causes of gender homophily in science.