Gender Disparity in Academic Gastroenterology: Beginning of the End of the Underrepresentation of Women?

Gender Trends in Authorship of Gastroenterology Randomized Controlled Trial Literature

INTRODUCTION

We describe female authorship trends in gastroenterology (GI) randomized controlled trial literature as a novel focus on gender bias in academic GI.

METHODS

Using a systematic PubMed search, we extracted GI randomized controlled trial reports published from 2011 to 2022. We describe time trends in proportions of females among first and last authors overall and within GI subspecialties and high-impact journals.

RESULTS

The proportion of females increased from 25.4% to 36.8% and from 14.3% to 24.8% among first and last authors, respectively. Smaller increases in female authorship occurred in most subgroups, although there were proportionately fewer females among authors in high-impact journals and advanced therapeutic endoscopy publications.

DISCUSSION

Over the past decade, female authorship in GI RCT reports has increased. However, female representation, particularly among senior authors and in high-impact journals, remains significantly lower. Despite recent improvements, female still constitutes a minority of the authors of original GI RCTs.

Diversity Drives Representation: An Internal Audit of Gender Representation in Citation Practices of a Single Surgical Laboratory

Background

Large-scale retrospective studies have identified implicit gender bias in citation behaviors across multiple medical fields. There are minimal resources to directly assess one's own citation behavior before publication at a laboratory level. In this study, we performed an internal audit of our own citation practices and behavior, looking at the representation of authors by gender in our own bibliographies.

Methods

Bibliographies were collated from our laboratory's publications between 2015 and 2022 with a single senior author, who was excluded from participating in this study. Bibliographies were run through a simulation originally constructed and used by authors from the University of Pennsylvania that categorized authors of each article by gender: man or woman, according to external database records.

Results

Of the 1697 citations, the first and last authorship sequences displayed to be 60.8% male/male, 10.1% male/female, 16.3% female/male and 12.8% female/female. Men-led articles within our laboratory cited 67.4% male/male articles in their bibliographies compared with women-led articles citing 53.9%. All laboratory bibliographies consisted of 77.1% male senior authors compared with 22.9% female senior authors.

Conclusions

Our data confirm that a gender bias in citation practices exists at the laboratory level. Promisingly, these data also indicate that diversity within an individual laboratory group leads to diversity in representation; therefore, diversifying a team of researchers is prone to improve the overall work and success of the laboratory. We encourage laboratory groups to challenge their own biases by replicating their own results and discovering how these biases might be impacting their publications.

Gender Equity in Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

IMPORTANCE

Gender equity in obstetrics and gynecology remains a barrier to career mobility and workplace satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate gender equity for academic positions in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional observational study of all FPMRS divisions with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship program in the United States in July 2020 using publicly available demographic and academic data collected from online search engines. Gender equity in academic FPMRS was assessed by gender representation, academic appointment, and research productivity of each attending physician within the division. Research productivity was assessed using both the H-index with career length controlled for with the M-quotient.

RESULTS

There were 348 attending physicians from 72 FPMRS divisions (198 female [56.9%], 150 male [43.1%]). A large percentage of female attending physicians were at the assistant professor level (75.8% [94 of 124]) when compared with their male counterparts (24.4% [30 of 124]; P < 0.001). Conversely, there were a larger percentage of male attending physicians (62.2% [56 of 90]) at the professor level when compared with their female counterparts (37.8% [34 of 90]; P < 0.001). There was no difference in research productivity between male and female attending physicians after controlling for career length with the M-quotient (P = 0.65). Only age (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.24) and the M-quotient (odds ratio, 36.17, 95% confidence interval, 8.57-152.73) were significantly associated with professorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that there are more female attending physicians in FPMRS and that most are assistant professors. Male and female FPMRS attending physicians had similar research productivity with respect to their career lengths. Gender was not a determinant for achieving a "professor" appointment.